1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 My lords, he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 Get out of our way, they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Faith is a River That Flows
Genesis 19:1-29
Sermon
by Lori Wagner
“Faith is a river that flows.
May our prayers be reeds that cling to the rock
From which springs somehow the living waters."
I’ll bet all of you remember the first time you climbed the “big slide.” I mean the “BIG” slide, that one that you looked at as a child and thought –that’s awesome. But scary! Real scary! I mean, it’s WAY high, and it’s a long way to the bottom, and okay, wow!
On the one hand, you are filled with that weird exhilaration to climb up there and have that experience of the wind whipping past your ears, and chills rising up in your body, the feel of your heart beating wildly in your chest, as you speed down the slide and slip into the landing area. But your mind also is saying, uh…..wait a minute. Out of control. WAY out of my comfort zone. FAST. Slippery. I don’t know about this. Do I really want to experience all of this chaos?
But curiosity and excitement . . and peer pressure . . . win over. You find yourself climbing up that long stairway to the very top. You sit at the top looking down. You hear everyone saying, Go! Go! Go! And all of a sudden, …you freeze.
Your first impulse is to turn around and go back down. Maybe you even try. But the line in back of you has piled up so large now, that going back is impossible. But you can’t go forward either. You’re stuck in time and place….frozen with fear, wondering how you ever let yourself do this in the first place!
For some of you, it’s the slide. For others, it’s the ride on a roller coaster. For others it might be the high diving board at the pool. Or that insanely high ferris wheel. We all have that one ride that we just can’t bear to go on.
Ask our wise ones here this morning, and they will tell you something about life: life takes us in places we do not wish to go. Places we never would go if we had a choice. Sometimes in life, we are forced to climb ladders we never intended to climb, take dives into new ventures that strike fear in our very bones, do things we don’t truly have the courage to do. Sometimes in life we find ourselves in situations beyond our control that force us to go forward and make decisions we really don’t want to make, enter places we really don’t want to go.
As Frank Sinatra put it, “That’s life.”
The scriptures are filled with these kinds of stories. Many of them, we name them “call stories” –stories of times when people felt called by God to go into new places, to take on new responsibilities, to chart new territories, and to make a home among new people. We praise the people in those stories, don’t we?
People like Abraham, called out of Haran to follow God wherever God may lead him. We read about his adventures in all kinds of places and doing all kinds of things, and we think, wow, what an extraordinary guy. We think of prophets like Samuel, or Moses, or Elijah, or Isaiah, and we think, wow! We think of Jesus’ disciples, who left everything and followed Jesus wherever he led them, and we think . . . no kidding! Wow! They are so much braver than I am. But then, that was another time and place….
But wait a minute. We don’t often talk about the stories in scripture where God calls people out, and much like we might feel, they get stuck!
Today, I want to put some perspective on one such story. The story of Lot and his family, and in particular, Lot’s wife. We don’t even know her name. Poor woman doesn’t even get a name in the story, but man does her story resonate with us, doesn’t it?
I mean, let’s be truthful. We diss this poor woman at the drop of a hat. We call her sinful, one of the “bad” women of the Bible, the one who did the “wrong” thing, the one we don’t want to pay attention to, ‘cause she isn’t the heroine of the story.
But I think we give “Lot’s wife” (some Jewish traditions name her Edith, so for the sake of giving her a name for the moment, let’s call her Edith)…I think we give Edith here a kind of a bad rap. And I suspect that Edith’s story is a lot more like our stories than we’d like to admit. In fact, I’d say, she needs a bit of our sympathy. Let’s think about her for a moment.
Abraham and Lot are pals. But there’s not enough room for them to keep shepherding the same land, so they split up. Abraham goes one direction; Lot goes another and sets up household in a place we learn later is called Sodom.
Lot’s a good guy, and so is his family, it seems. But one day, God calls out both Abraham and Lot. Let’s think about that again. Abraham’s story is not the only call story. Lot has a call story. As Abraham is being called to move out into new territory, so is Lot. As Abraham is being called out of where he’s dwelling to go into a new place, so is Lot. It’s just that the circ*mstances are different.
Abraham gets to move forward out of choice. Lot is given no choice. Edith is given less. In that time and place, she has no real decision-making power of her own. That’s why she’s “Lot’s wife” and not “Edith.”
Look at it this way. Abraham receives a promotion and moves on to a new position as “Father of Nations.” Granted, he needs to move, relocate, change his life around some, venture into some new duties, territory, get to know new people, grow the “business” of worshiping God here, there, and everywhere God tells him. Lot on the other hand…he’s fired.
Lot just had the experience of learning that morning from the Big Boss that he’s being escorted without choice “out of the building” and into the street. Time to move on and move along. Okay, so he’s received a bit of a severance package. He’ll be set up in a new town, learn to start again. But his “unknowns” are accompanied by a lot more unsavories. He may be a “good guy” in the story. But he still has to leave everything behind, and get moving. His former place of “employment” is about to be blown to smithereens. It’s coming down big time, going bottoms up, bankrupt (we know it was spiritually bankrupt!). He needs to get out while he still can. Otherwise, whether his fault or not, he’s going to go down with the ship.
Anyone identify with this one?
Edith, Lot’s wife – has even less choice! Anyone here ever been the spouse of someone who’s just been transferred to a job in another state? Or at the very least, another community? By proxy, while your husband or wife gets a bigger salary and a nicer office, what do you get? You get to lose your home that you loved, your kids get to start over in a new school, and you’re the one probably going to deal with all of those details. You’re going to have to find a new job yourself, new friends. You may be going far from your family. Or maybe you lose them altogether, or see them only twice a year. You know what I’m talking about.
Some of you….some of us . . . we’re not going to want to go. Or if we do….we’re going to go through a period of mourning. And this could be a man or a woman! It’s Lot’s “wife” Edith here in our story today. But it could be any of you. Any of us.
Whether it’s moving with your spouse to a new job, or losing your spouse and home and your relationship with your kids in a divorce, or having your spouse die and finding you can’t afford your mortgage anymore, or your house burns down or is leveled by flooding and you have to evacuate, or a hurricane sweeps in an destroys everything you loved, or maybe it’s just that a relationship ended, and your life feels destroyed-–one way or another, and we’ve all had one of these times in our lives in one form or another—one way or another, we find ourselves forced to move on and away from the life we had, and into the unknown.
And at some time or another, we will experience that time of mourning, that time of anguish, that time when all we want to do is go back. When we can’t go back, and we don’t know how to go forward, we freeze. We get stuck.
Edith here. She’s stuck. She’s got to be terrified. Most of her extended family probably died in the fire that was Sodom. The life she knew is gone. Her home. Gone. Her daily routines. Gone. Her friends. Gone. The few things she could call her own. Gone. Here she is fleeing with her husband, who had been literally forced out of town, and all she’s got is that they will head toward the next town, and start again.
Hey, even Hagar gets an oasis in her desert! But Edith here, all she’s got is that she knows she needs to move forward. With her husband. Guided by the hand of God.
Who wouldn’t be feeling like Edith at this point? She’s scared witless. She’s mourning. She’s grieving. She’s traumatized. She’s upset.
And so, she falters. She wavers. She stands frozen, rooted to the spot. She can’t bear to go forward. She can’t go back. She falls further and further behind. She looks back. Back at what was, back at what she had, back at what she has lost. Back at her life as she knew it.
And for this…we label her the “bad one”?
She’s not the bad one. Scripture doesn’t label her the “bad” one. We did that. The Scripture says that when she turned around and looked back, she turned into a pillar of salt. It doesn’t say, she was punished. On the contrary, when Lot and his family didn’t want to leave, the “angels of the Lord” literally grabbed them by the hands, including Edith and her two daughters, and pulled them out! So merciful was the Lord to them! The burning sulfur (lava perhaps!) was about to rain down on the city and spread that burning lava, ash, and fire, for miles around. So, God told Lot and his family, run for your lives! Go to that city where you requested that you put down roots. Leave now and don’t tarry. Or you’ll get caught in the firestorm. Go quickly. Don’t “look back.”
Lot’s wife Edith wasn’t disobeying God. She wasn’t evil. She wasn’t sinful. It was just really hard for her not to look back –at her life, her loss, her left behind friends and the only place she had called her home. So, while the others hurried forward for their lives, Edith got stuck.
She got stuck in her grief, and in her mourning. She got stuck in her memories, and in her feelings of loss that consumed her. She got stuck in her tears, and in her experience of trauma and shock. She got stuck in the love of her past. Edith froze. And in doing so, was “memorialized” by the fire that was Sodom. Her past literally consumed her.
We all grieve. We all mourn what we lose. It’s normal, and it’s human to grieve our losses.
But when our past becomes a stone that drags us down into the waters of our own tears, and we no longer feel the courage, the energy, the life in us to keep swimming, our past can consume us.
By the shores of the Dead Sea, not far from Sodom and Gomorrah, are some of the most beautiful salt statues in the world –formations made when salt was hardened after the water evaporated. Like stalactites and stalagmites in caves, they form over many years, sometimes after important geological events. Lava too creates stone formations, where it hardens in place.
We don’t know what actual geological event may have leveled those cities. The scriptures describe a rain of sulfur, much as in Pompeii. Perhaps it was a rain of lava. Perhaps the fiery rain of salty rock.
But what’s important in our story isn’t the loss itself, but our ability I think to identify with these stories of grief. We might want to retitle our take of this story –“How not to get stuck in your grief.” Or maybe, “How not to let your mourning drag you down so that you cannot move forward in your life.” Or most succinctly, “How not to Cry Yourself to Death.”
For what we can learn from Edith’s experience is that while grieving pain and loss is normal, if you allow yourself to get stuck in that place of grief, it can prevent you from moving forward into the newness and freshness of life. Grief “can” kill you. At least in the metaphorical way, if not in the physical.
For some people, grief has frozen their ability to create new relationships, or to renew ones lost. For some people, grief has hardened their hearts against new love, and new beginnings. For some people, grief has rooted them in place, so that their memories of the past consume them, and they have no energy to make new memories, to forge new paths, to create new experiences, to foster new relationships.
Grief can get you stuck. And like that feeling at the top of that high dive, or that slide, or that roller coaster, you can get stuck, unable to go back, and unable to move forward.
There’s a story I heard once about white water rafters. Two rafters went together on the journey that would start at the beginning of the river, and culminate at the end with a BBQ for all of the rafters. The instructions to all before the adventure began was to “trust the river.” To, as it were, “go with the flow.” At some points in the journey, the waters would get rough. At other times, it would be a smooth, cool ride through the mountain pass. But during the rough times especially, the guide told them, you need to remain calm, stay in the raft, hold on to the sides, and trust the river to take you through.
The group was off, and for a while, things went well. But then came the rough currents. The two rafters initially floated side by side, but once the fast currents began, they began to separate. The first rafter did as he was told. He grasped the grips, put his head down, and got ready for the ride. As the currents swept and tossed, the raft deftly sometimes bounced, sometimes raced through the watery canyons. The second rafter however panicked. He felt out of control, like things were going faster than he could do. All he thought about was getting back to the shore, stopping the course of the raft, so he could slow things down. He let go of the sides and tried to grab hold of one of the rocks jutting from the river. As he did, his raft overturned, and he was swept into the current, and his body battered upon the rocks.
Not every story ends so badly. Not all times we get stuck result in turning into stone, or being battered by them, although our hearts can harden and we can beat ourselves up like we often do to poor Edith. Not every time we get stuck will result in certain death, although we can live a life resistant to living, dead to love and new beginnings.
Remember that hand of God that took the hand of Edith and her daughters, the hand of God that led Lot and his family out of Sodom? That hand of God is the same hand guiding you through whatever time of grief and loss you are experiencing in your own life.
Sometimes the call of God sends you where you haven’t been. Sometimes the hand of God pulls you out of bad situations and sends you into places you do not want to go, or are afraid to seek.
God expects us to cry. God expects us to mourn. The river of life is not always smooth. There are lots of white water rapids. But Jesus is the living water that flows through your life. No matter where your life’s journey may take you, you need to trust the river. Your faith in Jesus can keep you holding on and going forward, even when your heart most wants to falter.
The river will always bring you through. Just take the hand of Jesus, when you’re sad, and when you’re lonely. He has the strength to pull you through when you get stuck, to lift you out when you get scared, to carry you over the waves that feel too high.
Jesus is the Way forward. Out of situations of addiction, out of relationships of abuse, out of times of mourning and loss of homes and loved ones, out of places that freeze us, tease us, and frighten us. Jesus is the Way. Trust the River of Life. For Jesus is the living water that will bring you through to new places and new beginnings, whole, refreshed, in one piece, and in one faith.
Don’t leave here this morning without some compassion for Lot's wife. When you leave everything behind, it’s hard to just walk on and never look back. But then I look at people spending their lives as pillars of sacrifice, unable to move from where they are, stuck in place and time, and in circ*mstances that hold them down and hold them back, and I can tell you this: moving is better. Even if it takes a force of nature to uproot you from that place, move. Go. Don’t worry what lies ahead. Just move. Trust Jesus. He is holding out a hand to you.
Take the hand of Jesus. And move ahead.
God is calling you into new life. Abundant life. And your faith is a river that flows there.
Based on the Story Lectionary
Major Text
The Call to Lot and His Family (Genesis 19:12-29)
Minor Text
The Call of Abram (Genesis 12)
The Saving and Call of Moses (Exodus 2-3)
A Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32)
Psalm of Praise to the Father: 68, 95, 100, 103, 104, 145, 149)
Song of Solomon: The Precocious Fig Tree and the Vision of Love (2)
Young Samuel’s Call (1 Samuel 1-3)
Young David’s Anointing (1 Samuel 16)
Young Daniel’s Commitment to God (Daniel 1-2)
A 12-Year Old Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52)
Timothy is Chosen by Paul to Be His Protégé (Acts 16)
The Call to Lot and His Family
With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”
When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them.
As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and youe have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”
He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.)
By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.
But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Image Exegesis: Called and Chosen
This is a very different kind of passage and one that we don’t often think of as a “call story.” But certainly, it is. Our “calls” are not always positive. And not always what we’d like them to be. And while often we think of our call as going into the wild blue yonder into God’s new adventure, sometimes too, our call is to leave behind a negative and dying place in our lives, and to move into a new place of livingness.
The metaphor of the fig tree supports this idea. The fig tree is that place of well-being, nourishment, positive future, where there is life, and hope. Sometimes we can get stuck in dead gardens into of moving on to plant new seeds in new places. And this all is very hard.
Sometimes when we look at scripture, it feels too easy, theologizing it, reasoning why someone did what they did. But we forget, these were people, with feelings, emotions, fears, relationships. What were they feeling? Why did they do what they did? What was it like? I think asking these questions opens up a whole new way to see the scriptures and the people in them, and how their stories meet ours.
Themes like identity making / soul searching / moving into the vastness of the unknown / into the mystery of God, these are all inherent in all call stories, but I think especially the ones today in these scriptures.
Risk taking too is inherent in any call story. There are great risks to going into new places and situations. But the risk feels greatest when it is accompanied by the greatest loss.
First you go. Then you know. You find your mission when you get there.
Into the wild blue yonder (written in 1938…) was the official song of the air force. It gave a sense of adventure to those forging new trails, but it also helped to quell the palpable fear of risking death in order to fly in a fierce and dangerous war zone.
Pioneers like Amelia Earhart and others…in medicine and in other fields….they entered into adventure but also not without loss.
To be a pioneer in faith…. A pioneer spirit, one also takes on a kind of ruddiness or sense of courage. When we think of pioneers, we think of people who with little to nourish them, set out into the unknown lands to make new settlements. This is very close to what many of our scripture characters did. People like Abraham, whose nomadic life caused him to settle and negotiate in order to make new life in several new and unusual places. He also had adventures with his wife Sarai doing so. Not all of them were considered safe. There is a risk factor to be a pioneer.
To be a pioneer of faith takes enormous gumption. And enormous faith….to go wherever life may lead you, wherever your heart may guide, wherever God may call.
Where you go…I will be with you. Ruth echoes the promise of God in her story, in which she and Naomi set out from where they are to go to where there may be hope of new beginnings, or at least lack of famine.
In a sense, “famine” as a metaphor (likewise wilderness and desert) is the past we leave behind, one that no longer nourishes us in some way or another. Something dead and that needs to be left in the past. While the “promised land” is that place where God leads us, often by the hand, so that we can find new beginnings.
Fire and destruction, famine, desert, wilderness….these are places we leave behind in order to follow God and Jesus into the still, cool waters of Life. All metaphors that help us understand the stories of scripture.
As you look at these “call” stories….look for the metaphors. How do they inform you emotionally? Spiritually? How do they bring you from one place to another? Or in the case of Lot’s wife….do not.
Wherever we go, we do it under the “wings” of God’s mercy.
From wherever you’ve been to wherever you are going….Traveling mercies be with you!
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., by Lori Wagner
Genesis 18–19 describes the destruction of the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Remarkably, Abraham argues with God over this judgment, and God apparently listens patiently to Abraham’s arguments (18:16–33). But Abraham cannot come up with even ten righteous people in these cities, and God destroys them. Only Abraham’s nephew, Lot, and his daughters survive.
At long last, in their old age and just as God had promised back in 18:1–15, Abraham and Sarah have a son, Isaac (21:1–21). Their happiness, however, is rattled severely in Genesis 22 when God tells Abraham to offer Isa…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 My lords, he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 Get out of our way, they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here-sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please! 19 Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it-it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the Lord out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities-and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Like his uncle Abraham, Lot has opportunity to play host to two angels (19:1–11). Even before they can retire for the night, Lot’s house is surrounded by the townspeople, who demand that Lot hand over his guests so that the townspeople, as the NIV puts it bluntly, might “have sex with them” (19:5). This clearly points to the fact that part of the sin of the Sodomites is sexual depravity.
Lot offers to turn over his two daughters as surrogates for the two angels. Perhaps he considers this the lesser of two evils. As host he must allow no harm to come upon his guests while they are under his roof. That was an ancient Near Eastern law of hospitality. This does not mean that Lot was justified in his action. Here the daughters are used, but in verses 30–38 the tables are turned and they are the ones in charge.
Lot and his family are warned about God’s judgment on Sodom and are given a chance to escape (19:12–19). Nothing has been said about Lot’s righteousness, as was the case with Noah. But in many ways the Noah story and the Lot story are parallel. A chosen family is spared the judgment of God.
Lot’s sons-in-law ignore his warning, thinking he is joking. Lot’s family does not take him seriously. Even Lot himself hesitates (19:16) when given the ultimatum. Lot is exempted from death because the Lord is merciful. Lot turns down the suggestion that he flee to the mountains and asks instead for refuge in the village of Zoar. Zoar means “small,” and is connected with Lot’s reference in verse 20 to the place as a very small one. Lot will be saved.
Only verses 24 and 25 describe the actual catastrophe. The disaster is a combination of volcanic activity and earthquake. Lot’s wife still longs for Sodom; she looks back, and that is the end of her. Verse 29 provides a second reason why God spares Lot: he remembers Abraham. This is the second time Lot owes his life to his uncle. He has been delivered from capture and now from death. Lot’s connections with Abraham save him from Sodom’s doom. Lot’s wife’s connections with Lot do not save her.
Lot ends up in the mountains, even after earlier stating that he would not go there. Lot gets drunk after the disaster, as did Noah. And while drunk, he is taken advantage of by a family member, as was Noah. His two daughters get him drunk and then sleep with him (19:30–38). As a result two sons are born: Moab (“by the father”) and Ben-Ammi (“son of my parent”), from whom come the Moabites and Ammonites. The story says more about Lot than anything. He is shortsighted, insensitive, and unattractive. His relationship with God does not measure up to that of his uncle.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
The Rescue of Lot from the Destruction of Sodom: God finds it necessary to execute judgment again, and as was the case in the deluge, God rescues those who are righteous. The great difference in these two accounts of judgment is that this time God punishes only a small region where wickedness had increased intolerably, rather than the entire inhabited land.
The narrator tells about Lot’s fleeing Sodom (vv. 1–29) and the children of Lot’s daughters (vv. 30–38). In the first section there are five scenes, in which Lot extends hospitality to the two messengers (vv. 1–11), Lot prepares to flee Sodom (vv. 12–15), Lot’s family flees (vv. 16–23), the cities of the plain are destroyed (vv. 23–26), and Abraham learns about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah (vv. 27–29).
19:1–2 Two of the three messengers from heaven who had visited Abraham (ch. 18) journeyed on to Sodom, arriving at evening. Given the distance, either they hastened their journey by drawing on their heavenly powers, or they arrived the second evening after leaving Abraham. On entering the city they found Lot sitting in the gateway. One of the gates of a walled city served as the main access. A large open area inside that gate was the hub of city life. Throughout the day citizens assembled in the square to buy and sell and conduct a variety of transactions. In the early evening the leading citizens of the town gathered there to visit and deliberate on matters of concern.
After separating from Abraham, Lot had pitched his tent near Sodom (13:12). Strongly attracted by the pleasures of urban life, he eventually moved into the city itself (14:12). Now he was sitting among the leading citizens, apparently aspiring to become a citizen of Sodom. He had pledged his daughters to local men rather than making sure they would marry from the line of Haran, as Abraham would do for Isaac. Lot’s ambition to join the people of Sodom had caused him to compromise his values. Little did Lot realize that his ambition had placed him in mortal danger.
When Lot saw the messengers enter the city, he rose to meet them and bowed low before them. He invited them to spend the night at his house. It was out of the ordinary for Lot, a resident alien, to offer hospitality to recently arrived strangers, for this was the prerogative of citizens. Likely he had deferred meeting the strangers for a reasonable span of time in order to permit any citizen to welcome them. As he watched these men, being aware of the attitudes in Sodom toward strangers, Lot felt compelled to offer them hospitality for their own safety. Caught between his desire for acceptance by the citizens of Sodom and his deep concern for the well-being of these travelers, Lot acted righteously by placing the welfare of these strangers above his own ambitions.
Politely the messengers declined Lot’s invitation, saying that they intended to spend the night in the town square, a wide area not far from the gate, where travelers were permitted to lodge for the night. Sojourners often lingered in such an area so they might be invited to a home (Judg. 19:15). It is possible that these messengers wished to spend the night in the square in order to observe the behavior of the citizens of Sodom.
The messengers’ hesitation in accepting Lot’s invitation provided another opportunity for any citizen to offer hospitality. But none did so. This lack of hospitality was a definitive symptom of the city’s perverted values. Lot’s compassion stood in marked contrast to the callous attitude of Sodom’s citizens.
19:3 Lot pressed the strangers to come to his house. This indicates how apprehensive he was about their safety should they spend the night in the square. The messengers yielded and went with Lot to his house. He prepared a meal for them. In contrast to the sumptuous feast Abraham had prepared for these travelers, only unleavened bread is mentioned here. Perhaps the cost of living was so high in this great city that Lot was not able to be as generous as Abraham had been, or perhaps Lot was not as inclined to treat strangers that generously.
19:4–5 That evening an incident served to inform these travelers of the kind of behavior that was taking place in Sodom. All the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded Lot’s house. The emphasis on “all” indicates that the entire male population of Sodom was in accord with what was about to take place. Having taken offense at Lot’s offer of hospitality when he was only a resident alien, these men had come to embarrass Lot and to satisfy their lust at the expense of these strangers. Brazenly they ordered Lot to bring . . . out the visitors that they might satisfy their sexual desires. These men had no regard for the weak or for strangers. This incident was symptomatic of the gross depravity that had overtaken Sodom; other texts depict Sodom as full of all kinds of acts of oppression and violence (Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 16:49).
19:6–8 Displaying great courage, Lot went outside to face the crowd, shutting the door behind him to protect his guests from harm. He addressed the men of Sodom as friends, literally “brothers,” showing that he identified himself with them. He pleaded with them not to do this wicked thing. Beside himself as to how to divert the aggression of this unruly crowd, Lot offered them his two virgin daughters to satisfy their lust. That his daughters were betrothed and still virgins offers further testimony to the fact that Lot lived by a higher moral standard than did the citizens of Sodom. Faced with a great moral dilemma, Lot placed the protection of his guests above the honor of his daughters; the code of hospitality motivated him to think first of these guests. Unfortunately, Lot was willing to concede the integrity of his own daughters. He viewed his daughters as a means of his own advancement, as is evident in his pledging them to citizens of Sodom. Thus he had moved far from the standard God desired. What other course Lot could have taken is a matter for conjecture.
19:9 The men of Sodom yelled at Lot, “Get out of our way,” ridiculing him by referring to him as fellow, literally “the one,” the outsider. They went on to taunt him, deriding him, an alien, for acting as their judge. They then threatened to treat him worse than they intended to treat the visitors. In showing hospitality to these visitors Lot had so incensed the citizens that they considered him an offensive person who had to be removed from their city. All of Lot’s efforts at becoming a citizen of Sodom were coming undone. Nevertheless, because he placed the honor of these strangers above his own ambitions, Lot showed that there was still some fear of God in him, at least in contrast to the wicked inhabitants of Sodom. The crowd became more aggressive, moving forward to break down the door of his house.
19:10–11 Sensing the danger Lot was facing, the visitors drew on their heavenly powers to rescue him. They grabbed him, pulled him into the house and shut the door. To gain more time they smote the crowd with blindness so that they could not find the door. This blindness may have been caused by a very bright flash of light (2 Kgs. 6:18).
19:12–14 The visitors ordered Lot to get . . . out of Sodom with his family, for they were going to destroy Sodom because of the great outcry. The aggression of the Sodomites against these strangers had provided them proof that the outcry rising from Sodom to God was genuine (18:20–21).
Lot responded by going to his future sons-in-law and warning them of Yahweh’s intent to destroy the city. They thought he was joking. At the critical moment Lot’s words of warning made no impact on them, suggesting that in their presence Lot had behaved like the citizens of Sodom rather than as one who had accompanied Abraham from Haran. Now, despite the imminent danger they faced, he appeared to them as a mocking fool. Their response bears additional witness to the moral decay of this city.
19:15 As dawn was about to break, the messengers urged Lot to hurry and leave with his wife and . . . two daughters lest he be caught in the conflagration. Given the frightful events of the evening and the concern the visitors had extended to him, Lot should have responded quickly to their warning. But he delayed, reluctant to leave the town that held such a fatal attraction for him.
19:16–17 As Lot lingered, the messengers grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city. The forceful deliverance of Lot’s family displayed Yahweh’s mercy toward Abraham. Outside the city, one of the messengers ordered Lot to flee, not to look back, nor even to stop anywhere in the plain. To escape unharmed they had to stay focused on their destination.
19:18–22 Lot objected. His craving for the life of the city again asserted itself. Expressing his gratitude for the favor and the kindness they had shown in sparing his life, he asked for a concession. Pointing out that he could not reach the mountains before the disaster overtook him, he asked to flee to a nearby town named Zoar. Twice he mentioned that this town was small, implying that it could not be as wicked as Sodom. There is a play on “small” and the name of Zoar, meaning “small” (14:8). Conceding his request and assuring him that they would not overthrow that town, they strongly enjoined Lot to flee there quickly.
19:23–25 Lot reached Zoar as the sun was coming up. Meanwhile, Yahweh rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah. On this day of judgment those cities and the entire plain were overthrown, and all vegetation destroyed. This region, which had been as lush as Egypt (13:10), was turned into a desolate, moon-like landscape. The devastation was so astounding that Sodom and Gomorrah have become the ultimate symbol of destruction (e.g., Amos 4:11). Overthrew suggests the possibility that an earthquake contributed to the destruction.
19:26 The furious noise of the destruction, along with her longing for the exciting life of Sodom, compelled Lot’s wife to look back and see what was happening. Because she disobeyed the specific orders of the messengers, she was overcome by the intense heat of the conflagration and is reported to have been turned into a pillar of salt.
19:27–28 The narrative shifts back to Abraham. Early the next morning he went out to the place where he had interceded for Sodom and looked down on the cities of the plain. He saw dense smoke rising from the land. Although he had no idea of Lot’s safety, he was most likely confident of the angel of Yahweh’s promise that Lot would be rescued.
19:29 The narrator provides a theological interpretation for Lot’s rescue. God had made sure that Lot escaped the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because he remembered Abraham (8:1). God showed mercy to Lot on the basis of Abraham’s faithfulness and his intercession for Sodom. Abraham, there-fore, was the reason for Lot’s deliverance (12:2–3).
19:30–38 In fleeing to the east, rather than to the west to rejoin Abraham and seek help in rebuilding his family’s life, Lot’s behavior led to a situation that was to result in conflict for the children of Abraham. Out of this situation came the Moabites and the Ammonites. These two nations, which were to be a thorn in Israel’s side for a large part of its history, were related to Israel through Lot, Abraham’s nephew (Deut. 2:9, 19; 23:3; Ps. 83:6). Lot also confirmed in going to the east that he chose to leave the ideals by which Abraham lived.
19:30–31 With his dreams of becoming a citizen of Sodom shattered and with the loss of his wealth (13:5–6), Lot suffered great trauma. He left Zoar and with his two daughters went to live in a cave in the mountains of Moab.
Lot’s inability to cope with his losses greatly distressed his daughters. They were in their prime childbearing years and had no idea how long they would live as refugees in a cave. The elder complained that there was no man around. In desperation, she concocted a scheme by which both of them might become pregnant by their father. After getting him drunk with wine, at night one of them would go to him and become impregnated. Their father’s willingness to compromise their honor to protect strangers (v. 8) must have diminished their respect for him. His behavior showed them how one could use a person, even a close relative, to achieve a selfish goal. Consequently, on two successive nights, each daughter in turn carried out this scheme. Both times Lot was so drunk that he was unaware of what was taking place. And both . . . daughters became pregnant. The text does not tell us when and how they informed their father of what had taken place. The older daughter bore a son and called his name Moab, that is, “from the father.” He became the father of the Moabites. The younger daughter bore a son and named him Ben-Ammi, that is, “son of my kinsman,” who became the father of the Ammonites.
This narrative does not make a moral judgment against Lot’s daughters; rather it pictures the tragic way Lot lived out the rest of his life. This sad scene shows the consequences of Lot’s longing to settle in such a wicked city, and it accounts for the origin of two peoples who lived in proximity to Israel. It also explains why the patriarchs never arranged marriages with Lot’s descendants.
This scene completes the story of Lot, who had left from Haran with Abraham (12:4). In the Abraham cycle Lot serves as a foil against which Abraham’s faith and obedience shine more brightly. Having lost his ability to act clearly on his faith, Lot faded into ignominy.
Additional Note
19:24–25 Sarna postulates that a fire storm resulted from a great earthquake in the Syrian-African Rift, the great rift that reaches from Syria in Palestine to Lake Nyasa in East Africa (Genesis, p. 138). The earth opened up, releasing gases and fumes. During the earthquake, lightning struck and ignited these gases, setting on fire the bitumen and sulfur in that region. To date no external witness or archaeological data identify the location of these cities.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by John E. Hartley, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Abram is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25 25:11. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.”
The narrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’s life and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years of events. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram was the son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of the barren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran, who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significant events in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at the age of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99 when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised (17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when he died (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the reader quickly through the story in such a way as to highlight a twenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of 75 and 100.
The NT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimate connection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification of God as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6). The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith who received the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is most importantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1, 12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James 2:21, 23).
Those who exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred to as “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding the covenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlight the promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed of Abraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way, those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessing imparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption of Christ and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).
A surface to recline on for the purpose of sleep, convalescence, contemplation, and sexual activity. Construction ranged from a portable straw mat (Mark 6:55; Acts 9:34) to raised frames crafted of wood, metal, or stone inlaid with precious metals and jewels (Deut. 3:11; Amos 6:4) and topped with luxurious coverings (Prov. 7:16, 17; 31:22). The mats of poor people might be rolled up and stowed away during the day to save space when they slept in a common room (Luke 11:7). The rich reclined on permanent structures in rooms designated for sleeping (Exod. 8:3; 2Kings 6:12), but people of more modest means also had bedrooms (2Kings 4:10).
The most commonly cited use of a bed is not for sleeping (Ps. 132:3; Luke 11:7) but for convalescing (Gen. 48:2; Exod. 21:18; 2Sam. 13:5; Ps. 41:3; Matt. 8:14; Acts 28:8) or dying (Gen. 49:33; 2Kings 1:4, 6, 16). Elijah restores life to a boy after placing him on a bed (1Kings 17:19; cf. Elisha in 2Kings 4:21, 34, 35). Murder is attempted (1Sam. 19:13, 15, 16) or accomplished (2Sam. 4:7, 11; 2Chron. 24:25) in bed.
The bed is for sexual activity, whether honorable (Song 1:16; Heb. 13:4) or not (Gen. 39:7, 10, 12; 49:4; 2Sam. 13:11). People mope and mourn on beds (1Kings 21:4; Ps. 6:6; Song 3:1; Hos. 7:14), loaf (Prov. 26:14), plot evil (Ps. 36:4; Mic. 2:1), meditate and rejoice (Pss. 4:4; 63:6; 149:5), and experience visions (Dan. 2:28; 4:5; 7:1). The bed is a metaphor for the grave (Job 7:13; 17:13; Ezek. 32:25).
Blindness was a common ailment in the ancient world. Some causes included old age (Gen. 27:1), trauma, or divine punishment (John 9:2). Israel was given special instructions to care for the blind (Lev. 19:14). True love helped the blind (Job 29:15), and misleading them was a serious violation (Deut. 27:18).
In figurative language, the Bible frequently describes the spiritual condition of people in terms of blindness. Isaiah capitalizes on the metaphor of blindness to describe the rebellious and apostate groups: prophets, priests, and rulers who were divinely afflicted with blindness (Isa. 43:8; 56:10; 59:10; cf. Zeph. 1:17).
Jesus highlighted the onset of the messianic age by fulfilling Isaiah’s promise to proclaim “recovery of sight to the blind” (Luke 4:18). Forty-six of fifty-two references to blindness in the NT are Gospel stories of Jesus’ healing. Because Jesus’ ministry was one of opening blind eyes (cf. Isa. 42:7, 16, 18), calling the Pharisees “blind guides” was a sharp description (Matt. 15:14; 23:16, 24). But on others, Jesus would impose blindness, the very reverse of his mission (John 9:3941), since he came as the “light of the world” (8:12). Spiritual blindness as applied to unbelievers could be used to describe the failure or hard-heartedness of some to accept the true identity of Jesus Christ. Using similar language, Paul describes the pagan unbelievers: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ” (2Cor. 4:4).
Nearsightedness and blindness can also be used to describe believers who have grown dull to the truth (2Pet. 1:9) or tepid in their faith (Rev. 3:17). Believers are blind when they fail to grasp their true spiritual condition.
Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.
To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:12; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.
Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela (also called “Zoar”), the cities of the plain (Gen. 14:2), were allied together against four kings invading from Mesopotamia. As the battle turned against them, they fled, and some fell into tar pits in the Valley of Siddim. Later, with the exception of Zoar, all these cities suffered cataclysmic destruction as God rained down burning sulfur on the entire plain in judgment against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19).
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).
A controlled point of entry into an otherwise enclosed area such as a city (Gen. 34:24; Ps. 122:2; Acts 9:24), camp (Exod. 32:2627), tabernacle court (Exod. 35:17), palace (2Kings 11:19), temple area (Jer. 36:10; Ezek. 40), prison (Acts 12:10), or house (Acts 10:17).
In the OT, the city gate has a central role in that city’s military, economic, judicial, political, and religious aspects of life. A key component of the defense system of a city, the gate consists of doors fortified with bars (Judg. 16:3; Ps. 107:16; Nah. 3:13) and keeps invading armies out while also serving as the point of departure and return for the city’s army (2Sam. 18:4; cf. God the warrior entering in Ps. 24:7–8). The gate also may serve as the location where news of the battle is delivered (1Sam. 4:18; 2Sam. 18:24). The destruction of the city gate usually means the destruction of the city (Isa. 24:12).
In the economic life of the city, the gate functions as a place of commerce (Gen. 23; 2Kings 7:1) and music (Lam. 5:14). At the entrance to the city gate, the city elders assembled daily to hear cases and render judgment (Job 29:7; Prov. 24:7). Along with the elders, there might be additional witnesses (Ruth 4:1–11; Ps. 69:12). For criminal cases, the gate may also be the location where punishment is enacted (Deut. 17:5; 22:24). Thus, the gate is to be a place where all people can come to obtain justice (2Sam. 15:2–4; Isa. 29:21; Amos 5:15). The gate may hold a seat reserved for the king (2Sam. 19:8) as well as the king’s officials (Esther 2:19–21; 3:2–3). The city gate might also contain shrines to various gods (2Kings 23:8; cf. Acts 14:13).
Some references to gates refer to those of the temple area (Ezek. 44; 46; Pss. 100:4; 118:19–20). In Ezek. 48 the temple area is to have twelve gates, each named after a tribe of Israel (Ezek. 48:30–35; cf. Rev. 21:12–25). The prophet Jeremiah proclaims the word of the Lord from both the city gate(s) (Jer. 17:19–27) and the temple gate(s) (7:1–4).
In the NT, Jesus raises the dead son of a widow at the town gate (Luke 7:11–17) and heals a lame man near the Sheep Gate (John 5:1–15). Peter heals a crippled man near the temple gate (Acts 3:1–10). Jesus mentions gates in his teaching, including a call to enter through the narrow gate of life (Matt. 7:13–14), and his parable of the sheep and the gate, in which Jesus refers to himself as the gate (John 10:1–18). See also City Gates.
After Abram (Abraham) realizes that the land between Bethel and Ai cannot support both him and Lot, he suggests that they part company. Abraham gives Lot first choice, and he decides to settle in the fertile cities of the Jordan plain on the outskirts of Sodom (Gen. 13:112). The text then describes Sodom’s inhabitants as “wicked” and “sinning greatly against the Lord” (13:13). In Gen. 18 God reveals to Abram his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the “outcry against” these cities and their “grievous” sin. God says, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me” (18:20). Abram pleads on behalf of Sodom and bargains with God to spare the righteous in the city.
Two angels of the Lord then arrive at Sodom to carry out the task of God’s investigation, and Lot meets them and invites them to stay the night with him. The men of Sodom then surround the house and demand that the visitors be brought out to them to be raped. Lot refuses and offers his daughters instead, intending to protect the visitors. The angelic messengers strike the wicked men of Sodom with blindness, and Lot, his wife, and his daughters flee the city. God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with a rain of “burning sulfur” (Gen. 19:24).
In both the OT and the NT, the cities’ names become a symbol of warning against violent wickedness and of God’s wrathful response of fiery destruction (Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9; Rom. 9:29; Jude 7). The ancient site of the cities is disputed, though they likely were located near the Dead Sea.
Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.
The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and good will between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.
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).
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.
In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.
More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.
Mercy is a distinguishing characteristic of the nature of God. God is called “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV [NIV: “Father of compassion”]). God is “rich in mercy” (Eph. 2:4; cf. 2Sam. 24:14; Dan. 9:9). God’s mercy was demonstrated in his covenantal faithfulness to his people (1Kings 8:2324; Mic. 7:18–20). God redeemed the oppressed Israelites from slavery under Pharaoh because of his mercy, which was stirred when he heard their groaning and cry for help.
Jesus Christ lived a life full of mercy. He is, in a sense, the bodily manifestation of God’s mercy. Jesus expressed deep mercy whenever he saw the sick and the lost. The writers of the Gospels describe Jesus’ demonstrations of mercy when he healed the blind, the lame, the deaf, the leprous, the demon-possessed, and the dead (Matt. 9:36; 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 5:19; 6:34; 8:2; Luke 7:13; John 11:33). Jesus especially had compassion on the crowds, who did not have a spiritual leader, and he compared them to “sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36).
What is the proper response to God’s mercy and compassion? God expects believers to show the same kind of mercy toward other people. One of the best examples is the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18:23–35).
In ancient Israel and surrounding cultures, pillars were used in every kind of architectural construction, from simple houses (Prov. 9:1) to palaces (Ps. 144:12) and temples (Judg. 16:29; 1Kings 7:1522). One of the distinctive features of Israelite domestic architecture was the division of the ground floor of the house into two, three, or four rooms divided by rows of pillars. Such pillars rested on stone foundations that often survived even when the rest of the building had been destroyed, thus allowing modern archaeologists to identify many remains of pillared houses.
Stone pillars (obelisks) were used in religious worship in ancient Israel, such as those erected by Jacob (Gen. 28:18, 22; 35:14). A pillar could also commemorate a covenant (Gen. 31:45; Exod. 24:4; Josh. 24:26; 2Chron. 34:31) or a tomb (Gen. 35:20). In later stories, pillars are viewed negatively, as in 2Kings 18:4, where Hezekiah is credited with destroying Asherah pillars as part of a broad religious reform (see also Jer. 43:13). Archaeologists have discovered cultic pillars in the temple at Tell Arad, among other places.
The temple of Solomon at Jerusalem incorporated two highly decorated pillars, Jakin and Boaz (1Kings 7:21), made of bronze and reported to be 18 cubits (27 feet) high and 12 cubits (18 feet) in circumference, with an additional height of 5 cubits (7.5 feet) including the capital (1Kings 7:16; cf. 2Kings 25:17). When Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 586 BC, the bronze pillars were destroyed, and their bronze was taken to Babylon (2Kings 25:13).
In ancient cosmology, the earth and the heavens were thought to be supported by pillars (Job 9:6; 26:11; Ps. 75:3).
In the NT, the pillar is used as a metaphor for leaders in the church (Gal. 2:9) or the church itself (1Tim. 3:15).
When Lot’s wife looked back while fleeing from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, thus failing to obey the instructions of the angels, she became a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:17, 26). This story has long been associated in local lore with natural salt formations in the environs of the Dead Sea.
In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circ*mstances of the one praying.
The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.
Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:1920; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).
Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).
The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1Cor. 14:15).
Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).
A crystallized mineral compound, often harvested from the Dead Sea, used with food for flavor and preservation (Job 6:6) and medicinally rubbed on infants (Ezek. 16:4). Salt was to be added to the grain offering to represent the covenant (Lev. 2:13). Just as salt survives the sacrificial fires, so does the covenant survive the difficulties of life. In the first century, salt was known as a preservative, seasoning, and fertilizer. All these uses may be behind Jesus’ statement that his disciples were “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13), indicating that they were important for the welfare of the world.
There are numerous relationships in the OT that could be characterized as following a servant-master model. These included service to the monarchy (2Sam. 9:2), within households (Gen. 16:8), in the temple (1Sam. 2:15), or to God himself (Judg. 2:8). We also see extensive slavery laws in passages such as Exod. 21:111; Lev. 25:39–55; Deut. 15:12–18. The slavery laws were concerned with the proper treatment of Hebrew slaves and included guidelines for their eventual release and freedom. For example, Hebrew slaves who had sold themselves to others were to serve for a period of six years. On the seventh year, known also as the Sabbath Year, they were to be released. Once released, they were not to be sent away empty-handed, but rather were to be supported from the owner’s “threshing floor” and “winepress.” Slaves also had certain rights that gave them special privileges and protection from their masters. Captured slaves, for example, were allowed rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10) and during special holidays (Deut. 16:11, 14). They could also be freed if their master permanently hurt or crippled them (Exod. 21:26–27). Also, severe punishment was imposed on a person who beat a slave to death (Exod. 21:20–21).
Slavery was very common in the first century AD, and there were many different kinds of slaves. For example, slaves might live in an extended household (oikos) in which they were born, or they might choose to sell themselves into this situation (1Pet. 2:18–25). Although slavery was a significant part of society in the first century AD, we never see Jesus or the apostles encourage slavery. Instead, both Paul and Peter encouraged godly character and obedience for slaves within this system (Eph. 6:5–8; Col. 3:22–25; 1Tim. 6:1–2; Philemon; 1Pet. 2:18–21). Likewise, masters were encouraged to be kind and fair to their slaves (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). Later in the NT, slave trading was condemned by the apostle Paul as contrary to “sound doctrine” and “the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God” (1Tim. 1:10–11).
Jesus embodied the idea of a servant in word and deed. He fulfilled the role of the “Servant of the Lord,” the Suffering Servant predicted by the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 42:1–4; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). He also took on the role of a servant in the Gospels, identifying himself as the Son of Man who came to serve (Mark 10:45) and washing the disciples’ feet (John 13:4–5). Paul says that in the incarnation Jesus took on “the very nature of a servant” (Phil. 2:7).
The special relationship between Jesus and his followers is captured in the servant-master language of the NT Epistles, especially in Paul’s letters (Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:1). This language focuses not so much on the societal status of these servants as on the allegiance and honor owed to Christ Jesus.
When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:2627). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).
Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).
hom*osexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.
Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).
Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.
The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).
The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).
When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).
Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).
Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).
Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).
Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).
Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam. 13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).
The way the word “soul” is used in English does not align well with any single Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible. It is widely accepted that the biblical view (both OT and NT) of humanity does not recognize sharp boundaries between body and soul (bipartite anthropology) or between body, soul, and spirit (tripartite). The human being is, according to biblical teaching, a psychosomatic unity.
The sun was worshiped as a god or goddess in all the nations around Israel in OT times, and the polemic against sun worship in Deut. 4:19; 17:3; Jer. 8:2; Job 31:2628 suggests that sun worship also made inroads into Israel. By way of contrast, the OT attests to the sun’s created status (Gen. 1:16) and counts it as subject to God’s control (e.g., Josh. 10:12–13).
In the OT, the sun often is associated with and symbolic of life (e.g., Eccles. 7:11; cf. Ps. 58:8) or justice (Ps. 19:6; Job 38:13; Mal. 4:2; cf. 2Sam. 23:3–4). The darkening of the sun is presented as a sign of judgment heralding the day of the Lord (Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:24; Rev. 6:12; 9:2), which many associate with the darkness that fell during the crucifixion (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
Any type of bread made without a leavening agent to make it rise. It developed symbolic value after the exodus (Exod. 12:1720). Leaven became a symbol of sin and was removed from homes during feasts as a physical reminder of the need to remove sin from one’s life. Unleavened bread was also the only acceptable form of bread to be offered as a sacrifice or placed in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 6:17). See also Leaven.
In biblical Israel, leaven used for making bread was a fermented lump of dough saved from an earlier batch. Like sourdough starter, it was added to a new batch of bread, which rose due to the fermentation process. Although the word “yeast” is found in some translations of the Bible, there is no clear evidence that ancient Israel was familiar withit.
Biblical teaching often views leaven as something to avoid. This may be because fermentation was linked with corruption, which to Israel implied uncleanness. Leaven was prohibited during Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread to remind the people of Israel that they left Egypt in haste, with no time for bread to rise (Exod. 12:15 20, 39). Leavened bread was forbidden in burnt offerings (Lev. 2:11). It was allowed, however, when brought as firstfruits, a thank offering, a peace offering, or as a wave offering during the Feast of Weeks (Lev. 2:12; 7:13; 23:17). This was possibly because it would be eaten by the worshipers and priests and not burned on the altar.
In the NT, leaven usually retains its negative connotations. Jesus instructed his disciples to beware the leaven—the teaching—of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Matt. 16:6–12). Paul taught that the sin of one, like leaven, could corrupt the many (1Cor. 5:6–8). He also wrote that legalism perverts the gospel just as leaven works through a batch of dough (Gal. 5:9). Positively, Jesus compared the growth of God’s kingdom to leaven, which invisibly spreads through a large quantity of dough (Matt. 13:33).
Direct Matches
Abram, eventually named “Abraham,” is awell-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen.11:25–25:11. The patriarchal name “Abram” is usedexclusively in Genesis, 1 Chron. 1:27, and Neh. 9:7. Abram’sname (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen.17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of manynations.” His prominence as a biblical character is evidencedin the 254 references to him documented in both Testaments.
Thehistorical reliability of the account of Abraham is vigorouslydebated by scholars, although the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550BC) is the generally accepted time period of Abraham’s life.The narrative of his life is a selective account of key events thatserves the theme and purpose of the larger biblical narrative.
Thenarrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’slife and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years ofevents. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram wasthe son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of thebarren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran,who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significantevents in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at theage of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised(17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when hedied (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the readerquickly through the story in such a way as to highlight atwenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of75 and 100.
TheAbraham narrative in Genesis is a story intentionally structuredaround the familiar details of life and death, uprooting andresettling, faith and doubt, and dysfunctional relationships. It isdistinguished with illustrations of divine activity in family andpolitical relationships. God is speaking (12:1, 7; 15:5, 7, 9),revealing (12:7; 17:1; 18:1), rescuing, judging, and fulfilling wordsof promise (18:19; 21:1). God’s fingerprint is clearly notedwith the summary statements of the Lord’s blessing (24:1) andwealth (24:35).
Thecovenant that God made with Abraham is a key element in the overallstory and foundational for the theology of both Testaments. Thisdivine arrangement is introduced in Gen. 12:1–3 andprogressively unfolded with increased detail in Gen. 15; 17. It isstructured so that the obligations are borne by the Lord himself. Thecovenant promises land, seed, and blessing to Abraham and hisdescendants. In Gen. 15 the Lord officially cut the covenant withAbraham, thereby guaranteeing his commitment to his word. The halvingof animals and the walking between the cut pieces by God symbolizedby the torch constituted an ancient covenantal ritual affirming God’sresponsibility for the covenant particulars.
TheNT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimateconnection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification ofGod as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6).The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith whor*ceived the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is mostimportantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1,12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James2:21, 23).
Thosewho exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred toas “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding thecovenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlightthe promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed ofAbraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe inChrist are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way,those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessingimparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption ofChrist and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).
Thepromise of land made to Abraham is referenced specifically in Acts(7:5, 16) and Hebrews (11:8, 11), where his obedient faith isfeatured and the land is discussed in connection with the historicalcontext of his life. See also Abram.
A solid, nonmetalic, combustible mineral substance found in major deposits in the Near East. Volcanic eruptions emit burning sulfur, and this image suggests agonizing destruction (Deut. 29:23; Job 18:15; Ps. 11:6; Isa. 30:33; Ezek. 38:22; Luke 17:29). Also referred to as brimstone, burning sulfur is portrayed throughout the OT as an element of divine judgment; it is first mentioned in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24). Revelation picks up the language of burning sulfur to describe the terrors of God’s final judgment (14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8).
A solid, nonmetalic, combustible mineral substance found in major deposits in the Near East. Volcanic eruptions emit burning sulfur, and this image suggests agonizing destruction (Deut. 29:23; Job 18:15; Ps. 11:6; Isa. 30:33; Ezek. 38:22; Luke 17:29). Also referred to as brimstone, burning sulfur is portrayed throughout the OT as an element of divine judgment; it is first mentioned in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24). Revelation picks up the language of burning sulfur to describe the terrors of God’s final judgment (14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8).
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Bela (also called“Zoar”), the cities of the plain (Gen. 14:2), were alliedtogether against four kings invading from Mesopotamia. As the battleturned against them, they fled, and some fell into tar pits in theValley of Siddim. Later, with the exception of Zoar, all these citiessuffered cataclysmic destruction as God rained down burning sulfur onthe entire plain in judgment against the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah(Gen. 19).
Thebiblical text seems to indicate that these cities were north of theDead Sea. When Abram and Lot were at Bethel, the land could notsupport both of their households. Lot was enticed by the well-wateredplain of the Jordan Valley, and he moved east and lived near Sodom(Gen. 13:3–13). The sons born to Lot were Moab and Ben-Ammi(19:37–38), whose descendants settled east of the north end ofthe Dead Sea.
Evenso, the traditional view for the past century has located thesecities at the southeastern end of the Dead Sea. Surveys of the areanear the Lisan Peninsula revealed five cities dating to the EarlyBronze Age, the most prominent of which is Bab edh-Dhra’.
Twilight before sunrise (Gen. 19:15; Job 3:9; cf. Prov.4:18). People typically slept from dusk to dawn (but see Judg. 19:25;1Sam. 14:36), beginning activity at sunrise (Judg. 16:2; Neh.4:21; Dan. 6:19). The psalmist and Jesus pray before dawn (Ps.119:147; Mark 1:35). Jesus was raised from the dead before dawn (Mark16:2), making the time a symbol of the resurrection (2Pet.1:19).
The Hebrew word ’erets occurs 2,505 times in the OT andis most frequently translated “country” or “land.”“Earth” renders the Greek word gē in the NT. Notsurprisingly, ’erets appears 311 times in Genesis alone, thebook that initiates Israel’s landed covenant (Gen. 15:18). Theprimary uses of ’erets are cosmological (e.g., the earth) andgeographical (e.g., the land of Israel). Other uses of ’eretsinclude physical (e.g., the ground on which one stands) and political(e.g., governed countries) designations. Less frequently, “earth”translates the Hebrew word ’adamah (“country, ground,land, soil”).
Heavenand Earth
Israelshared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. Thisworldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon theprimeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having fourrims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rimswere sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters.God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth andshaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:12–13). Similarly,the Akkadian text Hymn to the Sun-God states, “You [Shamash]are holding the ends of the earth suspended from the midst of heaven”(I:22). The earth’s boundaries were set against chaos (Ps.104:7–9; Isa. 40:12). In this way, the Creator and the Saviorcannot be separated because, taken together, God works against chaosin the mission of redemption (Ps. 74:12–17; Isa. 51:9–11).The phrase “heavens and earth” is a merism (two extremesrepresenting the whole) for the entire universe (Gen. 1:1; Ps.102:25). Over the earth arched a firm “vault” (Gen. 1:6).Heaven’s vault rested on the earth’s “pillars,”the mountains (Deut. 32:22; 1Sam. 2:8). Below the heavens isthe sea, part of the earth’s flat surface.
Therewas no term for “world” in the OT. The perception ofworld was basically bipartite (heaven and earth), though sometripartite expressions also occur (e.g., heaven, earth, sea [Exod.20:11; Rev. 5:3, 13]). Though rare, some uses of ’erets mayrefer to the “underworld” or Sheol (Exod. 15:12; Jer.17:13; Jon. 2:6). The earth can be regarded as the realm of the dead(Matt. 12:40; Eph. 4:9). However, the OT is less concerned with theorganic structure of the earth than with what fills the earth:inhabitants (Ps. 33:14; Isa. 24:1), people groups (Gen. 18:18; Deut.28:10), and kingdoms (Deut. 28:25; 2Kings 19:15). The term’erets can be used symbolically to indicate its inhabitants(Gen. 6:11). However, unlike its neighbors, Israel acknowledged nodivine “Mother Earth,” given the cultural associationswith female consorts.
TheTheology of Land
Inbiblical faith, the concept of land combines geography with theology.The modern person values land more as a place to build than for itsproductive capacities. But from the outset, human beings and the“earth” (’erets) functioned in a symbioticrelationship with the Creator (Gen. 1:28). God even gave the landagency to “bring forth living creatures” (Gen. 1:24). The“ground” (’adamah) also provided the raw substanceto make the human being (’adam [Gen. 2:7]). In turn, the humanbeing was charged with developing and protecting the land (Gen. 2:5,15). Showing divine care, the Noahic covenant was “between[God] and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Thus, land was no mereonlooker; human rebellion had cosmic effects (Gen. 6:7, 17). The landcould be cursed and suffer (Gen. 3:17; cf. 4:11).
Israel’spromised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen.13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing,fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orientingpoints for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise,“flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27).Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity andjudgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationshipwith God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; thiscould ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits”people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).
ForIsrael, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen.15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithfulobedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4).Conditionality and unconditionality coexisted in Israel’srelationship of “sonship” with Yahweh (Exod. 4:22; Hos.11:1). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen.18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was thesupreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev.25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance”to give (1 Sam. 26:19; 2 Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). TheLevites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did theother tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20;Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter andto occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3).Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when theyaccused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing withmilk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however,no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance”(Josh. 13:1).
Landpossession had serious ethical and religious ramifications (Deut.26:1–11). Israel was not chosen to receive a special land;rather, land was the medium of Israel’s relationship with God.Land functioned as a spiritual barometer (Ps. 78:56–64; Lam.1:3–5). The heavens and earth stood as covenant witnesses(Deut. 4:26). Blood, in particular, could physically pollute the land(Num. 35:30–34). National sin could culminate in expulsion(Lev. 26:32–39), and eventually the land was lost (Jer.25:1–11). For this reason, Israel’s exiles prompted aprofound theological crisis.
Inheritance
Thenotion of inheritance connected Israel’s religious worship withpractical stewardship. Land was not owned; it was passed down throughpatrimonial succession. God entrusted each family with an inheritancethat was to be safeguarded (Lev. 25:23–28; Mic. 2:1–2).This highlights the serious crime when Naboth’s vineyard wasforcibly stolen (1Kings 21). It was Israel’s filialsonship with Yahweh and Israel’s land tenure that formedYahweh’s solidarity with the nation. The law helped limitIsrael’s attachment to mere real estate: Yahweh was to beIsrael’s preoccupation (see Jer. 3:6–25). When the nationwas finally exiled, the message of the new covenant transcendedgeographical boundaries (Jer. 32:36–44; Ezek. 36–37; cf.Lev. 26:40–45; Deut. 30:1–10). In postexilic Israel,sanctuary was prioritized (Hag. 1:9–14).
Itwas Israel’s redefinition of land through the exile thatprepared the way for the incorporation of the Gentiles (Ezek.47:22–23), an integration already anticipated (Isa. 56:3–7).The prophets saw a time when the nations would share in theinheritance of God previously guarded by Israel (Isa. 60; Zech. 2:11;cf. Gen. 12:3). Viewed as a political territory, land receives nosubstantial theological treatment in the NT; rather, inheritancesurpasses covenant metaphor. Using the language of sonship andinheritance, Paul develops this new Gentile mission in Galatians (cf.Col. 1:13–14). The OT land motif fully flowers in the NTteaching of adoption (cf. 1Pet. 1:3–5). Both curse andcovenant are resolved eschatologically (Rom. 8:19–22).Inheritance is now found in Christ (Eph. 2:11–22; 1Pet.1:4). In the economy of the new covenant, land tenure has matured infellowship (koinōnia). Koinōnia recalibrates the ethicalsignificance of OT land themes, reapplying them practically throughinclusion, lifestyle, economic responsibility, and social equity.
Beyondcosmological realms, heaven and earth are also theological horizonsstill under God’s ownership. What began as the creation mandateto fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28) culminates in the newcreation with Christ (Rom. 8:4–25). Under the power of Satan,the earth “lags behind” heaven. Christ’s missionbrings what is qualitatively of heaven onto the earthly stage, oftenusing signs of the budding rule of God (Matt. 6:10; Mark 2:10–11;John 3:31–36; Eph. 4:9–13; Heb. 12:25). As Israel was tostand out in a hostile world (Deut. 4:5–8), now those ofAbrahamic faith stand out through Christian love (John 13:34–35;Rom. 4:9–16). According to Heb. 4:1–11, Israel’sinitial rest in the land (see Exod. 33:14; Deut. 12:9) culminates inthe believers’ rest in Christ (Heb. 4:3, 5). The formerinheritance of space gives way to the inheritance of Christ’spresence. The OT theme of land is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus’exhortation to “abide in me” (John 15).
Earthquake–InPalestine there have been about seventeen recorded major earthquakesin the past two millennia. One of the major sources of theseearthquakes is believed to originate from the Jordan Rift Valley. Inantiquity earthquakes were viewed as fearful events because themountains, which represented everlasting durability, were disturbed.The confession of faith is pronounced in association with suchphenomena (“We will not fear, though the earth give way”[Ps. 46:2]). An earthquake must have made a great impact in Amos’sday (“two years before the earthquake” [Amos 1:1; cf.Zech. 14:5]).
Anearthquake has many symbolic meanings. First, the power of God andhis divine presence are manifested through it (Job 9:6; Ps. 68:8;Hag. 2:6). It accompanied theophanic revelation (Exod. 19:18; Isa.6:4; 1Kings 19:11–12) when the glory of the Lord appeared(Ezek. 3:12). His divine presence was especially felt whenearthquakes occurred during the time of the crucifixion and theresurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:54; 28:2). It led thecenturion to confess of Christ, “Surely he was the Son of God!”(Matt. 27:54). God’s salvation power is represented when anearthquake comes at the appropriate moment, such as when it freedPaul and Silas from prison (Acts 16:26).
Second,it is used in the context of God’s judgment (Isa. 13:13; Amos9:1; Nah. 1:5). It becomes the symbol of God’s anger and wrath(Ps. 18:7). God brought earthquakes upon the people to destroy evilin the world and to punish those who had sinned against him (Num.16:31–33; Isa. 29:6; Ezek. 38:19). Earthquake activity possiblyexplains the background to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:24).
Third,earthquakes are said to precede the end of time (Matt. 24:7; Mark13:8; Luke 21:11). In the apocalyptic book of Revelation, earthquakesare regular occurrences (Rev. 6:12; 11:13, 19; 16:18).
In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.
Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle
Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.
Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).
Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.
Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle
The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.
Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).
Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.
Cooking Utensils
Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.
Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.
The Cooking of Food
The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.
Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).
After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).
The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.
Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).
The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).
Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.
Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.
Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).
Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).
Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).
Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).
In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).
Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).
Human Uses and Metaphors
Fire is a basic necessity for various human activities such as cooking (Exod. 12:8; Isa. 44:15–16, 19; John 21:9), warming (Isa. 44:16; Jer. 36:22; John 18:18), lighting (Isa. 50:11), manufacturing (Exod. 32:24), and refining metals (Num. 31:22–23). Fire is also an important means of maintaining the purity of God’s people, used to punish sinners (the sexually immoral [Lev. 20:14; 21:9; cf. Gen. 38:24] and the disobedient [Josh. 7:25; cf. 2Kings 23:16]) and to destroy idols (Exod. 32:20; Deut. 7:5, 25; 2Kings 10:26), chariots (Josh. 11:6, 9), and the cities of Canaan (Josh. 6:24; 8:19; 11:11; Judg. 18:27). As an essential means of worship, fire is used to burn sacrificial animals (Gen. 8:20; Exod. 29:18; Lev. 1:9; 3:3; 9:10, 13–14, 20) and grain offerings (Lev. 2:2, 9; 9:17).
The Mosaic law has several regulations concerning fire. Regarded as work, starting a fire is forbidden on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:3). It is the responsibility of the priests to keep the fire burning on the altar (Lev. 6:9, 12–13). The use of an “unauthorized fire” for sacrifice is forbidden (note Nadab and Abihu’s death [Lev. 10:1–2; cf. Num. 3:4; 26:61; 1Chron. 24:2]). Also, contrary to the Canaanite religious custom, burning children is forbidden (Deut. 18:10), though the Israelites failed to keep this command and elicited God’s judgment (2Kings 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jer. 7:31; 32:35; note Josiah’s ban in 2Kings 23:10).
As a metaphor, fire also signifies human anger (Ps. 39:3), wickedness (Isa. 9:18), self-reliance (Isa. 50:11), evil planning (Hos. 7:6–7), lust (Prov. 6:27–28), evil speech or tongue (Prov. 16:27; James 3:5–6), and, paradoxically, kindness to an enemy (Prov. 25:22; Rom. 12:20).
Divine Uses and Metaphors
In the Bible, God is described as the ruler of fire (Ps. 104:4; cf. 1Kings 18). Positively, God sends fire to signify his acceptance of worship (Lev. 9:24; Judg. 13:19–20; 1Kings 18:38; 2Chron. 7:1–3; cf. Luke 9:54). God also purifies his people by fire in order to provide them with abundance (Ps. 66:12), to cleanse them of their sins (Isa. 6:6–7), to refine them into the true remnant (Zech. 13:9), to restore true worship (Mal. 3:2–3), to bring forth genuine faith (1Cor. 3:13, 15; 1Pet. 1:7), and to give Christians a true joy of participating in Christ’s suffering (1Pet. 4:12). God also promises to make his people like a firepot and a flaming torch that will burn the surrounding enemies (Zech. 12:6). Negatively, God uses fire to punish the wicked and disobedient (Gen. 19:24; Exod. 9:23; Num. 11:1; 16:35; 2Kings 1:10, 12; Isa. 29:6; 34:9–10; 66:24; Ezek. 38:22; 39:6; Rev. 20:9). God is a farmer burning unfruitful trees (John 15:2, 6; cf. Matt. 3:10; 7:19; 13:40) and “thorns and briers” (Isa. 10:17). The eternal fire of hell is the place where God’s final judgment will be executed (Matt. 5:22; 25:41; Mark 9:45–49; Jude 1:7; note the “lake of fire” in Rev. 20:14–15; cf. 14:10; 21:8).
Fire is also a symbol used to image the indescribable God. It symbolizes God’s presence: a smoking firepot with a flaming torch (Gen. 15:17), the burning bush (Exod. 3:2; cf. Elijah’s expectation [1Kings 19:12]), the pillars of fire and smoke (Exod. 13:21–22; Num. 14:14), the smoke on Mount Sinai and in the tabernacle and the temple (Exod. 19:19; Num. 9:15–16; Deut. 4:11–12; Isa. 6:4). Fire marks God’s protection: the “horses and chariots of fire” (2Kings 6:17; cf. 2:11), the “wall of fire” (Zech. 2:5). Fire also represents God’s glory: God’s throne (Dan. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 1:4, 13; 10:2, 6–7), God’s form (Ezek. 1:27), the seven spirits of God before the throne (Rev. 4:5). God in his holy wrath is also likened to a burning fire (Pss. 79:5; 89:46; Isa. 5:24; 33:14; Jer. 15:14; Ezek. 21:31; 22:21; Hos. 8:5; note the expression “consuming fire” [Deut. 4:24; Isa. 33:14; Heb. 12:29]) and even to a fiery monster (Ps. 18:8; Isa. 30:33; 65:5; cf. Job 41:19–21). Fire is an important element in the description of the day of the Lord (Joel 2:3; cf. 2Pet. 3:12). God’s words in the prophet’s mouth are likened to a fire (Jer. 5:14; 20:9; 23:29).
Fire is also used to speak of Jesus. John the Baptist refers to Jesus’ baptism as one with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matt. 3:11). Jesus identifies the purpose of his coming as casting fire on earth (Luke 12:49). The returning Jesus is portrayed as coming in “blazing fire” (2Thess. 1:7), and the eyes of the glorified Christ are likened to “blazing fire” (Rev. 1:14; 2:18; cf. “flaming torches” in Dan. 10:6). In Acts 2:3 the Holy Spirit is portrayed as the “tongues of fire.”
After Abram (Abraham) realizes that the land between Betheland Ai cannot support both him and Lot, he suggests that they partcompany. Abraham gives Lot first choice, and he decides to settle inthe fertile cities of the Jordan plain on the outskirts of Sodom(Gen. 13:1–12). The text then describes Sodom’sinhabitants as “wicked” and “sinning greatlyagainst the Lord” (13:13). In Gen. 18 God reveals to Abram hisplan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the “outcryagainst” these cities and their “grievous” sin. Godsays, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as badas the outcry that has reached me” (18:20). Abram pleads onbehalf of Sodom and bargains with God to spare the righteous in thecity.
Twoangels of the Lord then arrive at Sodom to carry out the task ofGod’s investigation, and Lot meets them and invites them tostay the night with him. The men of Sodom then surround the house anddemand that the visitors be brought out to them to be raped. Lotrefuses and offers his daughters instead, intending to protect thevisitors. The angelic messengers strike the wicked men of Sodom withblindness, and Lot, his wife, and his daughters flee the city. Goddestroys Sodom and Gomorrah with a rain of “burning sulfur”(Gen. 19:24).
Inboth the OT and the NT, the cities’ names become a symbol ofwarning against violent wickedness and of God’s wrathfulresponse of fiery destruction (Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9; Rom. 9:29; Jude7). The ancient site of the cities is disputed, though they likelywere located near the Dead Sea.
As a noun, the word “jest” means “a playfuljoke,” as a verb, “to act or speak in a joking manner.”Lot warned his sons-in-law to flee Sodom, but “he appeared tohis sons-in-law to be jesting” (Gen. 19:14 NASB [NIV:“joking”]). Paul warns believers against “coarsejesting” (Eph. 5:4 NASB [NIV: “coarse joking”;NRSV: “vulgar talk”]).
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).
Mountains, both literally and metaphorically, play a highlysignificant role in biblical history, religion, and theology. Peopleare shaped by the geography of the location in which they live, andthis was no less the case with the Israelites. Mountains, aspermanent and immovable, form natural barriers and borders (Josh.15), afford protection from invaders (Judg. 6:2; Ps. 125:2), serve asplaces of refuge (Gen. 14:10; 19:17; 1Sam. 14:22), and providebases from which to launch attacks (Judg. 4:14; 9:36). Often in theBible, mountain imagery is used to describe God as eternal and astrong refuge (Pss. 36:6; 90:2; 121:1–2; 125:2).
Butmountains are also places of mystery. In the religious world of theancient Near East, gods were thought to either live or make theirpresence known on mountains—portals, as it were, between heavenand earth. The garden of Eden is regarded by Ezekiel as having beenlocated on “the holy mount of God” (Ezek. 28:13–14).God mysteriously reveals himself in a flame of fire to Moses at MountHoreb (Exod. 3), and then later from that same mountain God gives thelaw amid thunder, fire, and smoke; the people are not allowed toapproach the mountain lest they die (Exod. 19). Moses has anothertheophany on the same mountain (Exod. 33:17–34:8), and Elijahhas a very Moses-like encounter there with God as well (1Kings19).
Becauseof this association between gods and mountains, it was the norm tobuild temples for deities on mountaintops. Thus, the temple inJerusalem is built on Mount Zion, which is also the place whereAbraham had been ready to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:2; 2Chron.3:1). Thus, this mountain is the “mountain of the Lord”(Gen. 22:14), the mountain of God’s “inheritance”(Exod. 15:17), his “holy mountain” (Ps. 48:1). Even theplans for the tabernacle and temples are given on mountaintops (Exod.25:40; 26:30; 27:8; 2Sam. 24:18–25; 1Chron.21:18–22:1; 28:11–12; Ezek. 40:1–2; Rev. 21:10). Itshould not escape notice that Israel’s legal tradition andliturgical tradition are both associated with mountains, Sinai andZion (Jerusalem).
Itis no wonder, then, that mountains play such a significant role inthe NT and the life of Christ. On top of a high mountain, the deviltempts Jesus to worship him (Matt. 4:8–10). Jesus proclaims thelaw of the kingdom from a mountain (5:1). On a mountain, Jesuschooses to reveal to his disciples his true glory in thetransfiguration (17:1). After his resurrection, Jesus has hisdisciples meet him at a mountain, from which he makes his declarationof authority and gives the Great Commission (28:16–20). ButJesus and the NT authors also “relocate” the place wherepeople meet with God from any particular location, mountain orotherwise, to the human spirit and to the church (John 4:21–24;Heb. 12:22–23).
When Lot’s wife looked back while fleeing from thedestruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, thus failing to obey theinstructions of the angels, she became a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:17,26). This story has long been associated in local lore with naturalsalt formations in the environs of the Dead Sea.
Architecture is the technology and the art of design andconstruction. The technology of architecture includes anunderstanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art ofarchitecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. Thecreative imagination of the architect is constantly considering howto artfully manage form and function in the design and constructionprocess.
Architectureand the Bible
Theterm “architecture” does not occur in most Englishtranslations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of andreference to the architectural activity of God’s people. Inaddition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significantarchitectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so themajor empires of the biblical period often influenced the design andconstruction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in thebiblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to betterunderstand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means ofarchitectural investigation, the history and the heritage of pastcivilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of thebiblical text is enhanced.
Whenwe investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology andart of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecturedraws our attention to the background of the biblical text. Incertain biblical texts we learn about the design and the constructionthat took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during majorbiblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periodsoccurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenthto Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth toeleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge aboutcapital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. Welearn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanitecities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture ofPalestine enables us to better understand the form and function ofthese infrastructures.
Second,architecture draws our attention to the theological implications ofthe form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping withthe scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what Goddesigned for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of thepast and the future included more than just the functionalrequirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter ofthe biblical text must consider how the design of these structureselicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are alsowindows on the social, political, and economic aspects of theIsraelite nation.
OldTestament
Citiesand fortifications.The biblical record makes reference to architectural structures,materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequentlythroughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context forarchitectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not describedin extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who namedhis work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of citiesmentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut.17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important placefor city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was alsosinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed inthe city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executionsfor covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut.17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from thepostexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Withinthe city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel usedthoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in orderto build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to theheavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place ofrefuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).
Citieswere protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided spacefor housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts thefamiliar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destructionof its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of thecity architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needsof the community.
Thebiblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight intoits architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilicperiod, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the buildingmaterials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature ofthe city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments,“Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compactedtogether” (Ps. 122:3).
Beyondthese textual details we learn through the writings of the prophetsthat cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenantviolation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nationof Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophetsalso anticipated the return of the people along with the restorationof the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).
Thetemple and sacred structures.Theother architectural features referenced by the writers of Scriptureinclude altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple.The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furnitureitems described in detail and expertly crafted. The constructionprojects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon,like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekielgives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a futuretemple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).
Thetemple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing.The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three storieshigh. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to coverall the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the constructiondetails for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architecturalstyle. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by thestyles of the major periods.
Whatare the theological implications related to the form and function ofthe sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that Godis the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’ssignature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonictemple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexitiesof the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beautyand intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which Goddesigned, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).
God’sskill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also inthe revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel tothe nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifestedin the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35;2 Chron. 2:14).
Thestructures designed by God for construction were primarily for him.This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periodsincluded long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling.References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not aboutdesign and construction but about function. The domestic home must befree of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to thestandards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homesis given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings7:1–12).
Thetabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34;2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design andfunction of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God andreminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures oftemple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be theresting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord(2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler(2 Chron. 6:34).
Thehistory of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacredstructures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. Godoccupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places aslong as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam.4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings whodeparted from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreignoverlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of thestructure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacredstructures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of thesacred structures anticipates a future time when their originalfunction will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’spresence forever.
NewTestament
TheNT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder”of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple ofGod. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders arebuilding upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costlystones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19;2 Cor. 6:16).
Interms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church.During the time of Christ the significant architectural structureswere the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builderof the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of theJerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure duringthe life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized overform in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer,Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30;Acts 13:15; 14:1).
Thefocus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of itsarchitectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in thecontext of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC toAD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible forestablishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. Theprimary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, whichresulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued tobe laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was beingintroduced. The homes in these cities often were built withcourtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of theHellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing,along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.
Thebook of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about thenew city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) andwhich will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator andredeemer.
After Abram (Abraham) realizes that the land between Betheland Ai cannot support both him and Lot, he suggests that they partcompany. Abraham gives Lot first choice, and he decides to settle inthe fertile cities of the Jordan plain on the outskirts of Sodom(Gen. 13:1–12). The text then describes Sodom’sinhabitants as “wicked” and “sinning greatlyagainst the Lord” (13:13). In Gen. 18 God reveals to Abram hisplan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of the “outcryagainst” these cities and their “grievous” sin. Godsays, “I will go down and see if what they have done is as badas the outcry that has reached me” (18:20). Abram pleads onbehalf of Sodom and bargains with God to spare the righteous in thecity.
Twoangels of the Lord then arrive at Sodom to carry out the task ofGod’s investigation, and Lot meets them and invites them tostay the night with him. The men of Sodom then surround the house anddemand that the visitors be brought out to them to be raped. Lotrefuses and offers his daughters instead, intending to protect thevisitors. The angelic messengers strike the wicked men of Sodom withblindness, and Lot, his wife, and his daughters flee the city. Goddestroys Sodom and Gomorrah with a rain of “burning sulfur”(Gen. 19:24).
Inboth the OT and the NT, the cities’ names become a symbol ofwarning against violent wickedness and of God’s wrathfulresponse of fiery destruction (Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9; Rom. 9:29; Jude7). The ancient site of the cities is disputed, though they likelywere located near the Dead Sea.
A solid, nonmetalic, combustible mineral substance found in major deposits in the Near East. Volcanic eruptions emit burning sulfur, and this image suggests agonizing destruction (Deut. 29:23; Job 18:15; Ps. 11:6; Isa. 30:33; Ezek. 38:22; Luke 17:29). Also referred to as brimstone, burning sulfur is portrayed throughout the OT as an element of divine judgment; it is first mentioned in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24). Revelation picks up the language of burning sulfur to describe the terrors of God’s final judgment (14:10; 19:20; 20:10; 21:8).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Genesis 19:1-29
is mentioned in the definition.
Architecture is the technology and the art of design andconstruction. The technology of architecture includes anunderstanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art ofarchitecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. Thecreative imagination of the architect is constantly considering howto artfully manage form and function in the design and constructionprocess.
Architectureand the Bible
Theterm “architecture” does not occur in most Englishtranslations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of andreference to the architectural activity of God’s people. Inaddition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significantarchitectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so themajor empires of the biblical period often influenced the design andconstruction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in thebiblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to betterunderstand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means ofarchitectural investigation, the history and the heritage of pastcivilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of thebiblical text is enhanced.
Whenwe investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology andart of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecturedraws our attention to the background of the biblical text. Incertain biblical texts we learn about the design and the constructionthat took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during majorbiblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periodsoccurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenthto Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth toeleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge aboutcapital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. Welearn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanitecities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture ofPalestine enables us to better understand the form and function ofthese infrastructures.
Second,architecture draws our attention to the theological implications ofthe form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping withthe scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what Goddesigned for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of thepast and the future included more than just the functionalrequirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter ofthe biblical text must consider how the design of these structureselicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are alsowindows on the social, political, and economic aspects of theIsraelite nation.
OldTestament
Citiesand fortifications.The biblical record makes reference to architectural structures,materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequentlythroughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context forarchitectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not describedin extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who namedhis work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of citiesmentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut.17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important placefor city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was alsosinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed inthe city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executionsfor covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut.17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from thepostexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Withinthe city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel usedthoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in orderto build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to theheavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place ofrefuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).
Citieswere protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided spacefor housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts thefamiliar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destructionof its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of thecity architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needsof the community.
Thebiblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight intoits architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilicperiod, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the buildingmaterials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature ofthe city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments,“Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compactedtogether” (Ps. 122:3).
Beyondthese textual details we learn through the writings of the prophetsthat cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenantviolation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nationof Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophetsalso anticipated the return of the people along with the restorationof the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).
Thetemple and sacred structures.Theother architectural features referenced by the writers of Scriptureinclude altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple.The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furnitureitems described in detail and expertly crafted. The constructionprojects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon,like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekielgives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a futuretemple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).
Thetemple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing.The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three storieshigh. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to coverall the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the constructiondetails for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architecturalstyle. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by thestyles of the major periods.
Whatare the theological implications related to the form and function ofthe sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that Godis the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’ssignature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonictemple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexitiesof the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beautyand intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which Goddesigned, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).
God’sskill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also inthe revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel tothe nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifestedin the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35;2 Chron. 2:14).
Thestructures designed by God for construction were primarily for him.This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periodsincluded long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling.References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not aboutdesign and construction but about function. The domestic home must befree of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to thestandards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homesis given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings7:1–12).
Thetabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34;2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design andfunction of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God andreminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures oftemple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be theresting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord(2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler(2 Chron. 6:34).
Thehistory of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacredstructures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. Godoccupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places aslong as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam.4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings whodeparted from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreignoverlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of thestructure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacredstructures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of thesacred structures anticipates a future time when their originalfunction will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’spresence forever.
NewTestament
TheNT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder”of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple ofGod. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders arebuilding upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costlystones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19;2 Cor. 6:16).
Interms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church.During the time of Christ the significant architectural structureswere the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builderof the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of theJerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure duringthe life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized overform in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer,Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30;Acts 13:15; 14:1).
Thefocus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of itsarchitectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in thecontext of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC toAD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible forestablishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. Theprimary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, whichresulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued tobe laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was beingintroduced. The homes in these cities often were built withcourtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of theHellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing,along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.
Thebook of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about thenew city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) andwhich will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator andredeemer.
The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in aworldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimatedispenser of each. Blessings and curses are not the outcomes ofmagicians who attempt to manipulate the gods for personal gain orretribution. Rather, God is the giver of blessing and ultimately thefinal judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source ofevery good gift (James 1:17) and the one who gives power and strengthto prosper (Deut. 8:17).
Someview the nature of blessing and curse as simply a gift from God,while others see it as an act in which one party transmits power forlife to another party. Perhaps the common thread between views is theidea of relationship.
Terminology.In the OT, the key Hebrew terms for blessing are the verb barak andthe noun berakah. When the context of their use identifies a personor a living creature as the object of blessing, the basic idea is toprovide someone with special power that will ultimately enhance hisor her life. The blessing theme is also illuminated by means of wordssuch as “grace,” “favor,” “loyalty,”and “happiness.”
Inthe NT, the Greek term eulogeō and its cognates are bestunderstood in terms of the impartation of favor, power, and benefits.The makarios word group describes a state or status of beingfortunate, happy, or privileged.
TheOT curse vocabulary includes the ideas of disgracing, makingcontemptible, and imprecation. The NT curse terminology comprises theideas of curse, slander, or consecrated to destruction.
OldTestament.Thesovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation.The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gen. 12:3), toJacob through Isaac (Gen. 26–27), and to the people through thepriests (Num. 6:24–26).
Thetheme of blessing/curse is used to structure Deut. 27–28 andLev. 26 (cf. Josh. 8:34) in the overall covenant format of thesebooks. Scholars have observed that the object of this format is notsymmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, theblessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for thepurpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy alsoincludes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse,on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associatedwith the relationship.
Thecreation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology ofblessing (Gen. 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessingin Gen. 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and humanbeings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, theblessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gen. 6–8),Abraham (Gen. 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation ofIsrael and its leadership (Gen. 26–50). In these contexts, theblessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipientsin material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Acts17:25; cf. Matt. 5:45; 6:25–33; Acts 14:17).
Theblessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhanceand prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creationis the object of blessing (Gen. 2:7; Exod. 20:11), perhaps giving ita sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life suchas baskets and kneading troughs (Deut. 28:5), barns (Deut. 28:8), andwork (Job 1:10; Ps. 90:17) are blessed.
Godpromises to bless those who fear him (Ps. 128:1). Blessing isdesigned for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’scharacter, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embracesGod’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’swarnings. The blessings itemized in Ps. 128 are comparable to thosedetailed in Deut. 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (cf.Ps. 128:2 with Deut. 28:12; Ps. 128:3 with Deut. 28:4, 11). TheDeuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned whenGod-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’sapparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job; cf. Jesus).
NewTestament.Inthe NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both foodand joy (Acts 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Matt.6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and itfocuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift thatoriginates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritualindividuals.
Regardingcurse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to freeus from its deadening effect (Gal. 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will becompletely removed and the blessing associated with creation willprevail.
The book of Genesis (“Origins”) is well namedbecause it provides the foundation for the rest of the Bible andspeaks of the beginnings of the world, humanity, sin, redemption, thepeople of God, covenant, marriage, Sabbath, work, and much more.Genesis is the first chapter of the Pentateuch, a five-part story ofthe origins of the nation of Israel. Genesis is the preamble to thataccount, leading up to the pivotal moment of the exodus and the movetoward the promised land.
Authorship
Asnoted above, Genesis is the opening to the Pentateuch as a whole, sothe question of the authorship of Genesis is connected to thequestion of the authorship of the Pentateuch as a whole. Genesis (andthe entire Pentateuch) is anonymous, though Moses is said to havewritten down certain traditions that were included in the Pentateuch(Exod. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:22).
Latertradition speaks of the “law of Moses” (Josh. 1:7–8)or the “Book of Moses” (2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18;Neh. 13:1), though it is not certain whether these refer to theentire Pentateuch or merely to portions of it that were associatedwith Moses. The NT writers, as well as Jesus himself, speak of thePentateuch in connection with Moses (e.g., Matt. 19:7; 22:24; Mark7:10; 12:26; John 1:17; 5:46; 7:23).
Thequestion of Moses’ role in writing the Pentateuch is morecomplicated, however. For instance, there are indications thatGenesis was updated well after the death of Moses. Traditionally,these passages are called “post-Mosaica,” because theycontain information that could be available only after the death ofMoses. For example, Deut. 34 speaks of Moses’ death and burial.Apparently so much time has elapsed since his death that the writercan say, “to this day no one knows where his grave is”(v. 6). The writer then states, “since then, no prophet hasrisen in Israel like Moses” (v. 10), which also presumes aconsiderable length of time has passed. Other examples include Gen.11:31, which refers to Abraham’s hometown as “Ur of theChaldeans.” Although Ur was a very ancient city, the Chaldeanswere an Aramaic-speaking tribe that only occupied Ur long after thetime of Moses. Similarly, in Gen. 14:14 a city by the name of “Dan”is mentioned, but we know from Judg. 18 that this city only receivedthis name during the period of the judges.
Despitethese considerations, some scholars are still comfortable ascribingsome “essential” authorship role to Moses. (For the mainalternative theory for the authorship and date of the writing ofGenesis, see Documentary Hypothesis; Pentateuch.)
Structureand Outline
Genesismay be outlined in more than one way. One method is to follow thetoledot formulas that serve as an organizing structure for the book.The phrase “these are the toledot of X” (where X is thepersonal name of the character whose sons are the subject of thenarrative that follows) is repeated ten times: 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1 (cf. 36:9); 37:2 (see also 10:32; 25:13).For instance, Gen. 11:27 begins, “These are the toledot ofTerah” (NIV: “This is the account of Terah’s familyline”), while the account that follows is the story of Terah’sson Abraham. Toledot is best translated as “family history”or “account.” Hence, one can take Genesis as having aprologue (1:1–2:3) followed by ten episodes.
Interms of content and style, the book falls into three main units asfollows:
I.The Primeval History (Gen. 1:1–11:26)
II.The Patriarchal Narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43)
III.The Joseph Story (Gen. 37–50)
I.The primeval history (Gen. 1:1–11:26).The book opens with an account of creation given in two parts.Genesis 1:1–2:4a provides a creation account that describes thesix days in which God created the heavens and the earth, followed bya seventh day of rest. Genesis 2:4b–25 then provides a secondaccount of creation, this time with a focus on the creation of Adamand Eve. Genesis 3 then narrates the first sin of humanity, whichintroduces sin and death into the world. Genesis 4–11 providesfour additional stories (the murder of Abel by Cain, theintermarrying of the “sons of God” with the “daughtersof men,” the flood, and the tower of Babel). These stories showa creation gone wrong, God’s move to start over again with Noahand his family, and the persistence of sin thereafter. All of thisleads to the story of the patriarchs, where God’s plan to setthings right takes a decisive turn. These stories are connected bygenealogies that mark the march of time as well as providesignificant theological commentary.
II.The patriarchal narrative (Gen. 11:27–36:43).The middle section of the book of Genesis turns its attention to thepatriarchs, so called because they are the fathers of the nation ofIsrael. The style of the book changes at this point, so that ratherthan following the story of all the world and moving at a fast pace,the narrative slows down and focuses on God creating a people to obeyhim and to bring those blessings to the whole world (12:1–3).God now determines to restore the blessing lost at Eden by reachingthe world through the descendants of one individual, Abraham.
Abraham’sfather, Terah, took Abram (as Abraham was then known), Abram’swife Sarai (Sarah), and Terah’s grandson Lot and left Ur tosettle in Harran in northern Mesopotamia. No explanation is givenwhy. While they are settled in Harran, God commands Abraham to leaveUr in Mesopotamia and travel to Canaan. God promises that he willmake him a great nation (implying land and many descendants), andthat he will be blessed and will be a blessing to the nations (Gen.12:1–3). That blessing requires Abraham and Sarah to havechildren, and this sets up much of the drama of his story. OftenAbraham reacts in fear and not faith, but at the end of his story hehas a solid confidence in God’s ability to take care of him andbring all the promises to fulfillment (Gen. 22).
Isaac,not Ishmael (Abraham’s son through Sarah’s maidservantHagar; see Gen. 16), is the conduit of the promises to futuregenerations. Even so, Isaac is not a highly developed character inthe book of Genesis, although his near sacrifice in Gen. 22 iscertainly a matter of great interest. The episode in his life thatreceives the lengthiest attention is the courtship with Rebekah (Gen.24), and there the focus is primarily on her.
Theaccount of Isaac’s life gives way to an account of his sonJacob. Jacob is a complex character. The first episodes of his storyare about how he, the younger, inherits the blessing and becomes theconduit for the promise rather than his older brother, Esau. Jacobbecomes an example of how God uses the foolish things of the world toaccomplish his purposes. That the story of the patriarchs is apreamble to the story of the founding of Israel becomes obvious whenJacob’s name is changed to “Israel” after he fightswith God (Gen. 32:22–32) and his wives give birth to twelvesons, who give their names to the twelve tribes of Israel.
III.The Joseph story (Gen. 37–50).The third section of Genesis focuses on the twelve sons of Jacob, inparticular Joseph. A main theme seems to be God’s providentialpreservation of the family of the promise, in the context of adevastating famine. Joseph himself expresses the theme of thissection at the end of the narrative, after his father dies and hisbrothers now wonder whether he will seek revenge against them. Hereassures them by his statement that although they had meant theiractions to harm him, he knows that God has used these very actionsfor good, for the salvation of the family of God (Gen. 50:19–20).Yes, they had just wanted to get rid of him, but God has used theirjealousy to bring Joseph to Egypt. The wife of his owner had wantedto frame him for rape, but God has used this false accusation inorder to have him thrown into jail, where he meets two of Pharaoh’schief advisers. He had demonstrated to them his ability to interpretdreams, so when the chief cupbearer is restored to a position ofinfluence, he can advise Pharaoh himself to turn to Joseph tointerpret his disturbing dreams. These dreams have allowed Pharaoh,with Joseph’s help, to prepare for the famine. Joseph has risento great prominence in Egypt, so when the famine comes, he is in aposition to help his family, and the promise can continue to the nextgenerations.
Amongother secondary, yet important, themes of the Joseph narrative arethe rising prominence of Judah and the lessening significance ofReuben. Judah at first is pictured as self-serving (Gen. 38), but bythe end of the story he is willing to sacrifice himself for the goodof his father and family (Gen. 44:18–34). This story thusdemonstrates why the descendants of Judah have dominance over thedescendants of the firstborn, Reuben, in later Israelite history.Also, the Joseph story recounts how Israel came to Egypt. This setsup the events of the book of Exodus.
Styleand Genre
Style.Genesis is written in Hebrew prose of a high literary style. Wordsare carefully chosen not only to communicate the message of the bookbut also to attract the reader’s interest and attention.
Genre.Genesis is an account of the origins of the cosmos, humanity, and thepeople of God. Thus, it is proper to refer to the book as a work ofhistory. Of course, there is more than one type of history. Somehistories focus on wars, others on economics or politics. Moreover,Genesis is not history in the modern sense but follows ancientconventions, which do not call for scrupulous accuracy. The centralconcern of Genesis, as with the majority of biblical histories, isthe relationship between God and his people. So, it is appropriate toidentify Genesis as a theological history.
Somereaders misunderstand the nature of the historical information thatthe book provides. For example, Gen. 1–2 communicates to thereader that it is the true God, not a god such as the BabylonianMarduk or the Canaanite Baal, who created the cosmos. The way some ofthe stories are told provides a challenge to rival stories from otherancient religions. One example is how the Bible describes thecreation of Adam from the dust of the ground and the breath of God.This contrasts with the Mesopotamian creation account Enuma Elish, inwhich the god Marduk creates the first humans from the clay of theearth and the blood of a demon god. The biblical flood story also maybe compared to other ancient flood stories, especially the account ofthe flood found in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Genesis clearlyinteracts with such mythological stories to communicate importanttruths about the primeval period.
Message
Therich and complex book of Genesis pre-sents a profound messageconcerning God and his relationship with human beings. This shortarticle cannot do justice to the book’s depth and importance,but it can point to what is perhaps its most important theme: God’sblessing.
Genesis1–2 teaches that God created Adam and Eve and blessed them.They had everything they needed in the garden of Eden. They enjoyed aperfectly harmonious relationship with God and with each other. Theywanted for nothing.
Genesis3 explains how this blessed existence was disrupted. By choosing torebel against God, Adam and Eve ruptured their relationship with Godand, in consequence, with each other as well. They were expelled fromthe garden of Eden.
Evenin the midst of his judgment, however, God began the work ofrestoring the blessing to his human creatures (Gen. 3:15). Thusbegins the relentless work of God to bring restoration to his people.
NewTestament Connections
Genesisis the foundation not just of the Pentateuch, and not just of the OT,but of the entire Bible. The story that begins with creation and fallis followed by the history of redemption, which continues into the NTand which understands Jesus Christ as the one whose death andresurrection serve to restore God’s blessing to his people. Thefull restoration of relationship awaits the consummation of historyand the new Jerusalem, which is described in language telling us thatheaven is a restoration (and more) of the conditions enjoyed by Adamand Eve in the garden of Eden (Rev. 21–22, esp. Rev. 22:2).
Ofthe many allusions to and quotations of Genesis found in the NT, onlya few representative examples may be described here.
Paulpoints to the Abrahamic promise of the seed in Gen. 12:1–3 andproclaims that Jesus is that seed (Gal. 3:15–16). This claim issurprising in light of the OT’s clear understanding that it wasthe multiple descendants of Abraham constituting Israel who fulfilledthis promise (Gen. 15:15). Paul would have known this, but herecognizes that Jesus is the ultimate descendant of Abraham, and thatanyone who belongs to Jesus, Jew or Gentile, is also a participant inthe Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).
Asecond example comes from the way in which the author of Hebrewscites the Melchizedek tradition of Gen. 14:17–20. In Genesis,Melchizedek is a mysterious figure who is introduced as thepriest-king of Salem (Jerusalem), whom Abraham acknowledges as afellow worshiper of the true God. In order to make his argument thatJesus is the ultimate priest, the author of Hebrews connects Jesuswith Melchizedek rather than with Aaron and asserts the superiorityof Melchizedek because Abraham (and thus also Levi, Aaron’sancestor) paid respects to this man (Heb. 7:1–10).
Afinal example comes from the Joseph narrative. Earlier, we observedthat the narrative shows how God used the evil actions of people inorder to save many people. In this, the Joseph narrative anticipatesthe death of Christ, who was nailed to the cross by the hands ofwicked people, but God used this very action to accomplish a muchgreater salvation than he did through Joseph (see Acts 2:22–24).
The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of thefirst five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, andDeuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greekwords (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case,book”]) and is a designation attested in the early churchfathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “FiveBooks of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the“Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,”meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah isthe first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible(Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for bothJewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to theBible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.
TheEnglish names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the LatinVulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainlydescriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations”or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,”Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers tothe censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “secondlaw” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands(see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening wordsin each book. Beresh*t (Genesis) means “in the beginning”;Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’(Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “inthe desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] thewords.”
Referringto the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law”reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at MountSinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in thepromised land, including their journey to get there. However, callingthe Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading becausethere are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands,and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuchis a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creationof the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the readeranticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallenworld through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualitiesand content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another,as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesisends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years havepassed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic lifeat the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even beginswithout a clear subject (“And he called...”),which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from thelast verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’sfighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomyis Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of thepromised land.
Authorshipand Composition
Althoughthe Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christiantradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of thestory from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing theauthorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidencewithin both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at leastportions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicitliterary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14;24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied invarious literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses”(e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1).Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, whichuse terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” invarious forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35;23:6; 2Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g.,2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are usedby NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), evenreferring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” atvarious points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2Cor. 3:15).
Evenwith these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state thatMoses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch orthat he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factorspoint to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial arereferenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past(Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people andplaces were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan”in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based onthese factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuchunderwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish lifeand took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.
Overthe last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academicdiscussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory wascrystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the Historyof Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that thePentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived fromdistinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted andjoined through a long and complex process. Traditionally thesedocuments are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is adocument authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) inJudah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh”is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist”because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim”and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for“Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in thatbook; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concernedwith in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theoryand its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over variousliterary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doubletsand duplications in the text; observable patterns of style,terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts,descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.
Variousdocumentary theories of composition have flourished over the lastcentury of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents.However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and characterof the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the texthave many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question theaccuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories.Moreover, if the literary observations used to create sourcedistinctions can be explained in other ways, then the DocumentaryHypothesis is significantly undermined.
Inits canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artisticprose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousandsof years. One could divide the story into six major sections:primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50),liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num.10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’farewell (Deuteronomy).
PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)
Itis possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subjectmatter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, andpunishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that wouldbecome God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world(chaps. 12–50).
Theprimeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters ofGenesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictlyspeaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixthinstance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencingAbraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot(“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven placesin Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one mayuse to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).
Genesisas we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its firsttwo chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differingaccounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it isjust as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in styleand some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims.The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic,symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by atranscendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the secondaccount, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as heis present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils,dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side,and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundationalfor providing an accurate view of God’s interaction withcreation in the rest of Scripture.
Asone progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changesfrom what God has established as “very good” to discord,sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanityas Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in directdisobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple,and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend tounlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationshipbetween God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strifebetween humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as onemoves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to theflood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have sopervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all livingthings, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark fullof animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblicalnarrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood ashe commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noahfulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembershis promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for therest of Scripture.
Chapter9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as thecreation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fillthe earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restatedalong with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image(1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities andstipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will beenmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food,and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requiresaccountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood andorderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now herelinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, Godpromises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set therainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant withNoah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfillingcommands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17),specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).
Theprimeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition(e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and hisson Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal hisfather’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, andsubduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates tomake a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heavenwithin a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans byscattering the people across the earth and confusing their language.Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower ofBabel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straightwith humanity.
Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)
Althoughthe primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest ofthe Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchalfigures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamicnarrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as atransition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Josephnarrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.
Thetransition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32)reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east andsettles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. InHarran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan,which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land,make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as aconduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is theindication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah)relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How onebecomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is tobless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compellingquestion of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange betweenAbraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenantfulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. Itis there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test asGod asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passesGod’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’splace. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by thesign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generationsthrough Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf.15:1–21; 17:1–27).
Thepatriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises arerenewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14)and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac servesmainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as apassive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.
Deception,struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative,as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’swomb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for thefirstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram(northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservantsas concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-outwith his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’sblessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestlingencounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victoriousand receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel”(“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacobstory, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenantand reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps.28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thusenveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau(chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from theepisodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through thelives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remainsecure.
AlthoughJacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends forthem to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation beforefulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16).The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at theclose of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, whichelicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off tosome nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wildbeast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventuallybecomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later,Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royalcourt, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotionalreunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for atime in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph storyillustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divinesovereignty (50:20).
Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)
Genesisshows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how thisfamily becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught theways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a rivetingstory of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity andpower of God that take center stage.
Manyyears have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. TheHebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as theirmultiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—justas God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became anational threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spendtime in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessionsin hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).
Inthe book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as thevehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Mosesis an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentiallyavoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’shousehold. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and hekills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees toobscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead hispeople out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Likethe days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenantwith the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people inEgypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and hispersonal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses inthe great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), thesame place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubtshis own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh andleading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs andwonders not only will make the escape possible but also willultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, andpresumably the world (6:7; 7:5).
Thispromise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance issuccinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that findssignificance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my ownpeople, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great powerover nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens”Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favorfor his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenthplague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for thePassover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to theplacement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes.Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in thedesert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (orSea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, buttheEgyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvationevent of the OT.
Thesong of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quicklyturns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodusas the people of the nation, grumbling about their circ*mstances inthe desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one whohas saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of waterand food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care provesshallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks ofGod’s protection have been evident in the wilderness throughthe pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision ofmanna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses,the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience(16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his peoplethrough the leadership of Moses.
Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)
Mostof the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is therethat Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for thetabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and othercovenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. Theeleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through thecenter of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half ofExodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before thenation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness.Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall withinthe Sinaistory: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant(Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod.25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), themanual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code(Lev. 17–27).
Theevents and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelitereligious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that Godestablishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, wherebythe Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant[Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13,19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view inthis portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual propheticfunction of representing the people when speaking with God and, inturn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowedupon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within oneof the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). Thegiving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and theSabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known”to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see,e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).
TheIsraelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatesttheophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod.19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24).After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”)directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Mosesmediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern thefuture life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonialfashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that hasbeen spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) withwhom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that theIsraelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue byfashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them fromEgypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling injeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciouslypromises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, evenwhile punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’srelationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).
Exodusends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’spresence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood andits rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divineinstructions for how a sinful people may live safely in closeproximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin andminimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. Thesacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on aworldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterizea people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). Withthese rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations todepart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelitesbegin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflecta census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication ofthe tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencingthe quest to Canaan.
WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)
Therest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-yearstretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of thenation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show theexodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares forthe conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodesinvolving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters(27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turnedtothe future possession of the land.
Afterthe departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number ofIsraelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tiredof manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall asfree fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship oflife in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now thenation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes sooverwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God providesseventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, willreceive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.
Inchapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea toperuse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure theland from the mighty people there proves costly. This final exampleof distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. Theunbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-yearperiod of wandering.
Thediscontent in the desert involves not only food and water but alsoleadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent hisspecial relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority.Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as anotherLevitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence ofsigns and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron haveexclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related toKorah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent thetribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinctionin the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternalcovenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). Heand the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and aspart of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keepingthe tabernacle pure of encroachers.
Evenafter the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, Godcontinues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored forthe nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed fromthe mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeedone day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), beblessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). Thiswonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation istragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in thesubsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf,when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interactionwith God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’soracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women notonly joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’sholiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’sgrandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plaguecould have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas isawarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation andAaron’s priestly lineage.
Inchapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old,unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except forJoshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. Goddispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribalboundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service,and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nationoptimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promisedland.
Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)
Althoughone could reasonably move into the historical books at the end ofNumbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomypresents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to anation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewedas sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, lovetheir God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings(30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai(chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations forlawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code isrecorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law”(31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king.Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32)before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34),including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen inIsrael like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).
Deuteronomyreflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a rightheart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence ofcovenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with thefrequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to himalone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments(chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect thegreat Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with allyour heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Thesecommandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts”(6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, notcold and superficial religiosity.
Obedienceby the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereasdisobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses stronglycommends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in acovenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the futurethe Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations andwill suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17).Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts(10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In thefuture a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as wellas a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thusunderscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchalpromises despite the sinful nature of his people.
Formuch of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy hasreceived a significant amount of attention for its apparentresemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyriantreaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it ispossible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty formbetween Israel and God much like the common format between nations inthe ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of thistype can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to beconservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy isnot a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’sredemptive interaction with the world.
Son of Ham, grandson of Noah, and the father of the families that would become known as the Canaanites (Gen. 10:6, 15–19). Oddly, in the account of Ham’s great sin against Noah (seeing his father’s nakedness), Noah cursed his grandson Canaan rather than his son Ham (Gen. 9:18–27). The explanations of such cursing vary, but the passage ultimately establishes the context by which the Bible explains the relationship of the Canaanites to the Israelites in the centuries that followed. The most plausible reasons for why Canaan was cursed rather than Ham center on the irrevocability of God’s blessing of Ham in Gen. 9:1 or that Canaan played some undescribed role in the sinful act. The curse also included a promise of animosity between Canaan and the sons of Japheth (9:27). This element of the curse probably found fulfillment with the entrance of the Philistines (Sea Peoples) into the land at about the same time Israel was entering it under Joshua’s leadership.
In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.
Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle
Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.
Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).
Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.
Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle
The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.
Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).
Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.
Cooking Utensils
Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.
Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.
The Cooking of Food
The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.
Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).
After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).
The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.
Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).
The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).
Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.
Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.
Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).
Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).
Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).
Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).
In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).
Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).
In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.
Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle
Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.
Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).
Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.
Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle
The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.
Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).
Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.
Cooking Utensils
Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.
Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.
The Cooking of Food
The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.
Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).
After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).
The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.
Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).
The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).
Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.
Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.
Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).
Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).
Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).
Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).
In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).
Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).
In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.
Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle
Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.
Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).
Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.
Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle
The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.
Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).
Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.
Cooking Utensils
Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.
Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.
The Cooking of Food
The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.
Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).
After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).
The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.
Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).
The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).
Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.
Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.
Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).
Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).
Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).
Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).
In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).
Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).
In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.
Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle
Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.
Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).
Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.
Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle
The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.
Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).
Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.
Cooking Utensils
Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.
Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.
The Cooking of Food
The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.
Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).
After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).
The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.
Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).
The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).
Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.
Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.
Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).
Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).
Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).
Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).
In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).
Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
An arid environment challenging to life. Desert comprises about a third of the earth’s land surface, often overtaking verdant areas and squeezing human beings and animals into narrower oases. The deserts of the Bible—Negev, Sinai, Paran, and Zin—are part of the greater Saharo-Arabian desert system, the largest and driest in the world. Most of the land east (areas of present-day Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) and south (Egypt) of Palestine is desert. However, the desert experience of most Israelites was not vast sands but rather arid environments that could otherwise flourish with sufficient water. In this regard, the biblical “wilderness” and “desert” semantically overlap, but they are not the same environments.
With average precipitation of ten inches or less, these regions typically have sparse vegetation and little or no agriculture (Jer. 2:2). Pliny the Elder (AD 23/24–79) describes the Essenes, who lived near the Dead Sea, as having only “the company of palm trees” (Nat. 5.73). Temperatures are severe, often exceeding 110°F on summer days, but also falling below freezing on winter nights. The limited winter rains provide short-lived grass for grazing (1Sam. 17:28; Ps. 65:13; Jer. 23:10), along with thorns and briers (Judg. 8:7). Cisterns were dug to collect the precious rain (Gen. 37:22).
The severity of the environment is not conducive for animal and human life. The Bible mentions wild asses (Job 24:5; Jer. 48:6), jackals (Mal. 1:3), ostriches (Lam. 4:3), owls (Ps. 102:7), poisonous snakes (Isa. 30:6), panthers, and wolves (Hab. 1:8). The desert came to be viewed as the haunt of demons (Matt. 12:43) but also as a place for spiritual refreshment. By definition, a desert is untouched by human hands. The patterns and sounds go back to God, not the noisy neighbors of urban life. The desert therefore can facilitate communion with God because of the absence of distractions and the inevitable deepening awareness of the fragility of existence. Scarcity of resources also requires communal sharing and cooperation for survival.
Instead of in major urban centers in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine, the Bible presents God as training people in the desert by testing their faith, beginning with the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50). God redeems Israel out of Egypt into the desert (Exod. 15:22; 16:1; 17:1), leading them to Sinai (Exod. 18:5; 19:1–2) and then a forty-year sojourn (Num. 14:33; 32:13; Deut. 2:7). Following seasons of testing, concerning which the people routinely fail, God provides freshwater and manna, the “grain of heaven” (Ps. 78:24). However, except on the Sabbath, people are not allowed to store the food but must cultivate complete dependence upon God’s provision for their daily bread. Elijah flees into the wilderness and is provided for by an angel (1Kings 19:1–8). He returns to Mount Sinai (Horeb) and experiences the immediate presence of God in a “thin silence” (1Kings 19:8–13; NIV: “gentle whisper”).
This pattern is repeated in the NT, beginning with John the Baptist, who dresses like a desert nomad and subsists on locusts and wild honey—foods near at hand and not subject to agricultural tithing (Matt. 3:4; Mark 1:6). After John’s baptism, Jesus departs into the wilderness, where he fasts and is tempted for forty days and nights among the wild beasts but is also provided for by angels (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.). Paul, after his experience on the road to Damascus, departs into Arabia (Nabatea, present-day Jordan), the place “where the nomads live” and the traditional site of Mount Sinai (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 5.72; Gal. 1:17; 4:25). (Damascus, perhaps the oldest city in the world, is an oasis bordering the Arabian Desert on a highway connecting Egypt with Mesopotamia.) The author of Revelation depicts a woman, who represents the people of God, fleeing into the wilderness to escape the red dragon, Satan (Rev. 12:1–6).
The economic life of the biblical world rested on theprecepts of improvement of one’s standing, stable interactionbetween individuals and nations, and the fact that all of lifebelonged first to God. The ability to create a stable economy wasdriven by international standing, military strength, andenvironmental conditions. As a state, Israel was far more successfulin creating and sustaining wealth during periods with little upheavalin the monarchy and when there was little threat from outside forces.The reign of Solomon in the united monarchy and the coterminousreigns of Uzziah in Judah and JeroboamII in Israel, therefore,represent the periods with the most favorable economic conditions,and indeed these two periods are generally considered to be goldenages of economic and cultural strength.
TheEconomy of Israel
Beforethe monarchy.The economic life of the Bible begins with the creation account andthe reflections communicated there about humankind’sstewardship of that which belongs to God. Humankind is placed in theworld as the caregiver and protector of the rest of creation. Thispurpose will have ramifications for the remainder of the biblicalstory. Throughout the Bible, God expresses a deep concern foreconomic justice and economic well-being among his people. The lawgiven by God sets out an economic and political framework that buildson this idea of justice and human stewardship of God’screation, including some rather striking passages meant to assure ajust distribution and maintenance of resources and equality (Lev.25:1–55; Deut. 10:17–18; 15:1–11). The emphasis oneconomic and social justice is closely related to spiritualfaithfulness throughout the prophetic texts. Isaiah speaks ofeconomic prosperity and peace as an integral part of God’sdesire for Israel. Amos, Jeremiah, and Micah denounce the economicinjustices within Israel. This attitude and emphasis continue intothe NT, where Jesus talks as much about economics in his teachings ashe does about the rest of the Christian life. Jesus’ primaryemphases in discussing economic matters suggest a need to recognizeboth the priority of the heavenly economy over the earthly and thefact that one’s economic activities must communicate a sense ofjustice and mercy as well.
Thelack of a centralized government and industry in the early years ofIsrael’s existence meant that much of the economy revolvedaround private ownership and agrarian realities. In conquering theland of Canaan, the Israelites were transformed from seminomads intoagriculturists, but they were still largely on their own in economicmatters. They dwelled in villages and towns and lived off of whatthey raised in their fields and the milk and meat of their livestock.There was limited trade during this period, primarily existing onlythrough opportunities provided by traveling merchants from Phoeniciaand elsewhere. The modifications that took place in the Canaanitematerial culture when they were assumed by Israel were slight innature in this early period. The period of the judges reveals abrutal culture, and the people would have remained somewhatconstrained economically in the days prior to the monarchy. As statedabove, the laws certainly are important in understanding how Israelviewed itself before God; however, it must be admitted that therewere relatively few requisites concerning business contained in itsprecepts (Lev. 19:35–36; 25:36–37, 44–45; Deut.15:2; 23:20). This may in fact reflect the more individualized natureof the early economic systems of Israel.
Themonarchy.With the beginning of the monarchy, and especially the reign ofSolomon, signs of extensive external trade begin to manifestthemselves within Israel. The primary exports seem still to have beenagricultural in nature, as Solomon is said to have sent grains andoil to Tyre in exchange for their timber and workers (1Kings5). Horses were a significant sign of wealth in the ancient world,and during his reign, Solomon apparently was able to import quite afew from Egypt (1Kings 10:28–29). Solomon is even said tohave sent ships to the far reaches of the known world to acquiregold, silver, iron, apes, and peaco*cks (1Kings 10:22). Solomonalso saw the development of an extensive system of internal economicprosperity through division of the land into districts and throughestablishing firm control of the major arteries of travel withinIsrael (1Kings 4). Unfortunately, Solomon’s successorslacked his economic acumen. Due to inner turmoil and outside forces,Israel was unable to regain the standing that it held under Solomon,except for a brief period during the reign of Uzziah. Interestingly,the prophets often equated merchants with the Canaanites (Hos. 12:7;Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21). The kings of the northern kingdom of Israelseem to have fared slightly better in economic matters than did thekings of Judah. Ahab obtained a special standing in the markets ofDamascus (1Kings 20:34), and JeroboamII raised Israel topowerful status in the world’s economic perspectives.
Afterthe exile.Following the return from the exile, the Jewish community wasseverely impoverished and had very little business activity except inits larger cities (Neh. 3:31–32). Hellenism brought with it arenewal of trade capabilities, and Josephus reports that by themid-second century BC, Athenian merchants came regularly to Judea.The Maccabees captured Joppa, and Herod built Caesarea, whichultimately improved the economic standing of the Jews because theythen controlled port locations.
Lifein the NT seems not to have varied much from that in the OT, the mostimportant exception being the stability and ease of transportresulting from Roman control of the region. This stability was oftenoffset, however, by the imposition of high taxes. The NT relates thevast disparity of economic lifestyle between the enormously wealthyand the severely impoverished. There were also political andreligious ramifications to be found in the struggle to find a properresponse to taxation. This dilemma is reflected in the two opposingviewpoints among the twelve apostles, including the views of a taxcollector and of a Zealot. The early church seems to have dealt witheconomic matters with various degrees of success (Rev. 2:9; 3:17).
Coinage
Themonetary system of Israel seems to have always been based primarilyon gold and silver. In fact, the Hebrew word most often translated“money,” kesep, is the word for “silver.” Itis unclear exactly when coinage started in Israel. Opinions vary fromthe period just before the exile to several years after the exile. Upuntil that point, worth was assessed not by the value of the coin butrather by the weight of the metal. People carried their own weightsin a bag that were used to determine the value of an exchange (Deut.25:13; 2Sam. 18:12); thus, the focus for ensuring fair tradewas almost always on guarding against the use of false weights andscales (Lev. 19:36). The precursors to coinage seem to have beenpieces of silver and gold that were considered to be a certainweight, though the emphasis was still on the weight of the product(Josh. 7:21; 1Sam. 9:8). The basic standard of weight was theshekel.
ThePersians developed a more fixed system of coinage. Darius firstintroduced a reformed currency system around 520–480 BC. Thebasic standard was the daric, which was comparable to a Babylonianshekel in weight. Because of the inherent value of coins, the purityof the metals used became more important. This resulted in a slightshift in monetary imagery related to purity versus fair weight. Inthe Roman era, the denarius was the basic unit of money.
Villagesand Cities
TheOT distinguished in size between villages and cities. The smallestmeasure of communal living seems to have been farming settlements orhomesteads (Exod. 8:9; Neh. 11:25; Ps. 10:8). Larger settlements werereferred to as villages (Gen. 25:16; 1Sam. 6:18) or cities(Gen. 4:17; 19:25, 29). Cities were usually built along a lake orriver (Tiberius and Beth Shan) or where natural springs weresufficient to sustain a large population (Jerusalem and Jericho).Streets in the cities seemed to have been named after the place towhich they led or by the industry represented on them (Neh. 11:35;Isa. 7:3; Jer. 37:21). Open squares were found mainly at the gates ofthe city, where most of the commerce took place and which tended tobe the centers of city life. The gate and the adjoining open areaconstituted the marketplace, hence, names such as “Sheep Gate”(Neh. 3:1, 3, 32; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The wells sometimes weresituated here (2Sam. 23:15–16). News from the outside wasannounced first at the gate (1Sam. 4:18). Finally, court andcouncil sessions were held at the gate (Deut. 13:17; Ruth 4:11;2Kings 7:1; Job 29:7; cf. Gen. 19:7).
EconomicIssues Addressed in the Bible
Slavery.Slavery was considered legitimate in various circ*mstances, but sinceindividual possession of a slave was somewhat rare, it never became acenterpiece of the Israelite economic structures. It was a capitaloffense to kidnap people for the purpose of enslaving them (Exod.20:10–16; Deut. 24:7). When held by individual families, slaveswere to be treated as part of an extended family, and they werepermitted to partake in important festivals and to observe theSabbath (Exod. 20:10; Deut. 16:14). Ideally, slaves in debt bondageand Israelite slaves owned by foreign residents were automaticallyfreed at the Jubilee. If they had not already purchased theirfreedom, male Israelite slaves were automatically freed once they hadworked for six years (Exod. 21:2; Lev. 25:39–55); however, theprophet Jeremiah’s denunciation of the permanent enslavement ofHebrew men and women by their masters (Jer. 34:8–22) suggeststhat these practices were not faithfully executed within Israel’shistory.
Death,marriage, and redemption.The economic impact of death is addressed to some degree in thebiblical texts. Daughters who received an inheritance of land becauseof the lack of a male heir were required to marry within the tribe inorder to preserve the tribal allotments outlined by God in his giftof land to the people (Num. 27:7–8; 36:6–9). If thedeceased had no children of his own, his closest male relative wouldreceive the land (Num. 27:9–11). The levirate and go’el(“redeemer”) systems seem to have been enacted in orderto protect both widows and the property rights of the family.Marriage with a brother’s widow was forbidden as a general rule(Lev. 20:21), but when no male heir was present, the act wasconsidered obligatory (Deut. 25:5–10). Although there is somedisagreement, most would consider the case of Ruth to be not one oflevirate marriage, but instead an expression of the go’el (Lev.25:25; Jer. 32:6–9). The two systems apparently are related,with the latter being an extension of the former. But the importantdistinction is that the go’el’s duties includedredemption in much broader terms, including redemption from slavery(Lev. 25:47–55) and vengeance in the case of wrongful death(Deut. 19:6). One clear case of levirate marriage is found in theattempts of Tamar to bear a child with the brother of Er, herdeceased husband, and then eventually with Er’s father(Gen.38).
Tithing.Tithing one’s possessions was a very ancient custom thatactually predates the law codes and is found in the time of thepatriarchs. Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of everything”(Gen. 14:20), and Jacob made a vow that if he returned to hisfather’s house in safety, he would acknowledge Yahweh as hisLord and would give him a tenth of all that he possessed (Gen.28:20–22). The tithe that was applied to the seed of the landor to the fruit of the tree was redeemable. The tithe of cattle, onthe other hand, was not redeemable. Determining which animal was thetithe involved counting each animal singly, and every tenth one thatpassed under the rod became the tithe animal (Lev. 27:30–33).There is apparently some disparity in the biblical texts relating toa tithe. Nehemiah 10:37–38 seems to clearly indicate that therewas only one prescribed tithe taken in the OT era. However, there arethree texts regulating the tithe in the OT (Lev. 27:30–33; Num.18:21–32; Deut. 14:22–29). It would seem, then, that eachlaw gives only a partial picture of the regulations involving thetithe, as each assumes both the presence and the regulations of theothers. The practice of the tithe in Israel involved a yearly gift tothe temple, with the gifts of every third year kept in the communityfor the care of the poor and oppressed. These laws, then, were areminder of Israel’s holy status before God and that itsenjoyment of the rewards of that status was a consequence of theirelection. Consequently, the tithe demanded recognition of God’sownership of all the land. Furthermore, by being allowed to consumepart of the tithe (Deut. 14:23), participants were reminded of thepriority of God in their economy and lives.
A common form of hospitality offered to travelers in biblical times. A host offered a basin full of water so that a guest’s feet could be cleaned upon entrance into the home. The dusty and dry climate of Palestine made footwashing important, as people often walked along dirt roads with nothing more than sandals on their feet. Footwashing was so common that hosts who failed to offer this basic expression of hospitality and comfort were severely criticized (Luke 7:44).
Although a staple of hospitality, footwashing was considered the lowliest of activities performed by a servant. It was so demeaning that Jews did not wash the feet of other Jews but rather left the task to Gentile slaves. More often, travelers simply washed their own feet rather than having the chore performed for them (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 43:24; Judg. 19:21; Luke 7:44).
Because footwashing was performed by a person of inferior social status for a superior (1Sam. 25:41), it would be unthinkable to reverse this socially accepted norm in a culture saturated with relative social status. So for Jesus, a superior, to perform this demeaning chore for his disciples, his inferiors, makes his object lesson all the more dramatic (John 13:5–17). Jesus washed his disciples’ feet to show them that no role is too lowly for him to show the extent of his love (13:1). Peter learned the necessity of spiritual cleansing when Jesus washed his feet (13:8). Jesus also taught his disciples the importance of following his example in their own lives by washing one another’s feet (13:14). No act of service is too lowly for Christ’s followers, and no one is too great to perform such a humble act.
Some early churches may have taken Jesus’ example literally (1Tim. 5:10). Widows seem to have expressed their devotion by washing the feet of other Christians. Such good deeds need not be taken literally today and can be expressed figuratively in other culturally accepted acts of service. Nonetheless, some churches do perform ritual footwashings today.
In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the bodyor items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body.For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures inrelation to the different body parts that are identified with thegestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line onclassifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described inProv. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signalswith his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclearwhether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether allsignify different things or the same thing.
Head
Gesturesthat relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolentacts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting ofone’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head inmourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery andderision (2Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult(Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).
Acommon action is the shaving of the head, which can be forpurification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all bodyhair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer.16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer.41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden fromshaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), whilethe high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificialduties (Exod. 29:6).
Anointingof the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7;Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing ona person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand onthe head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod.29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals isa symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24,29, 33; 8:18, 22).
Inthe OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut.21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be acause for disgrace (1Cor. 11:5–6).
Face.Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching orcovering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6)or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh.7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2Chron. 20:18; Ps.138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1Sam. 20:41;25:41; 28:14; 2Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1Kings 1:23;1Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod.3:6]).
Theface can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev.13:45), in grief/mourning (2Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), inresignation (1Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery(Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12).It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).
Godcan be described as hiding or turning away his face againstwickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer.33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholdingblessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8;59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment(Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of thePhilistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant,apparently overpowered by Yahweh.
Actsof humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num.12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face(1Kings 22:24; 2Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic.5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shamingjudgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone bythe nose (2Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek ishumiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the othercheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke6:29).
Onecan lift one’s face in worship (2Kings 20:2; Job 22:26;Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it inshame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards inmourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37),the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting(2Sam. 10:4; 1Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).
Eyes.Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act(Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship andexpectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).
Mouth.Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while ahand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5;40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the deserttribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” indefeat.
Ears.An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his orher earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut.15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear forpurification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), whilesupplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear(2Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifiespaying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20;5:13).
Neck.The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor(Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched inarrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns againstheaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put ayoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonianconquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in ayoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on theneck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation(Josh. 10:24).
Body
Nakednessin public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev.3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment(Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign ofpromiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a signof mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2Sam. 19:24). A certainkind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection(Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is anact of humiliation (2Sam. 4:12).
Chest.In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning(Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts ofsacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering”before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).
Hand,arm.Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship,clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth inawe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut.4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1Kings 8:42; 2Kings17:36; 2Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21;Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is oftenused of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies andenemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act forthe sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).
Sincethe right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the righthand indicates being favored (1Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt.22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2;1Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under thethigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen.48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).
Clappingthe hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse(25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job clapshis hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission andrepentance (Job 40:4–5).
Handscan be lifted in worship (1Kings 8:22; 1Tim. 2:8), tobeseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath(Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1Sam. 24:6, 10;2Sam.1:14; 18:12).
Pilatewashes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus(Matt. 27:24), while 1Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humblethemselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that indue time they will be lifted up.
Buttocks.Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult andprovocation, as happens to David’s men (2Sam. 10:4;1Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cush*te captives (Isa. 20:4).
Leg.The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductiveorgans, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen.24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animalthighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21;10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery causea guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).
Themost common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship orreverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), indefeat (2Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps.57:6), or in respect (1Kings 1:31). In what seems to be asomewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees inprayer (1Kings 18:42).
Feet.Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures inthe Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32;43:24; 1Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), orin supplication (1Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as ablessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8;cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandalscan be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace(Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplicationbefore the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans cansignal deception (Prov. 6:13).
Enemiescan be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1Kings5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), havetheir feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15;105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation anddefeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the bloodof their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).
Thoseoverwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2Kings4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), whilethose emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2;3:24; Dan. 8:18).
Inthe NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication ofdivine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying ata person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt.15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37;5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipesthem with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an actof love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared hisbody for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washeshis disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood anddiscipleship (John 13:5–14).
Fingers,Toes.Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. Afinger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15;9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of theright thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20;Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).
Onewears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture ofrestoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motionin deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writeswith his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture ofindifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).
Clothesand Shoes
Garments.Garments attain significance as they are related to specificemotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen.37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments inmourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6;21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1Kings 21:27;2Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).
Rippingsomeone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2Sam.10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer.13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’sclothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons withdefiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing tornclothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).
Bylaying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may beacknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).
Sandals.A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10),while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicategiving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). Asandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast overa piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).
PropheticGestures
Propheticgestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentanceand approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiahputs a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekielcooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 daysand then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah stripsoff his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries anunfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).
Inthe NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment(Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinkswine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46;20:11; 27:35; 1Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christianpractices.
In the ancient Near East the type of cooking and heating utilized within a household depended upon the family’s socioeconomic status and lifestyle. A nomadic or seminomadic pastoral lifestyle demanded portability; permanent ovens or heating installations would have been impractical. A stable urban lifestyle made possible the construction of more complex heating and cooking equipment.
Cooking within the Seminomadic Lifestyle
Seminomadic groups, such as Abraham and his family or the Israelites before the settlement of Canaan, probably used an open fire or fire pit. A campfire was kindled on top of the ground or on flat stones. An open fire of this nature could also be ringed with a small stone circle. Shallow holes or fire pits were also dug into the ground near the front of a tent or outside, in the encampment. Since tents did not have chimneys, the smoke from a fire would escape through the door. The seasonal climate dictated whether a fire was kindled inside or outside the tent.
Fires were ignited with twigs or kindling by friction or sparks (Isa. 50:11; 64:2; 2 Macc. 10:3), a skill learned during the early Stone Age. Once lit, the burning embers of the fire could be moved around, kept smoldering, and fanned into a blaze with fresh fuel (Isa. 30:14; cf. Lev. 6:13). Abraham carried some type of an ember or fire with him when he went to sacrifice Isaac (Gen. 22:6). The “smoking firepot with a blazing torch” that symbolized God’s presence before Abraham may refer to a portable device for transporting fire (15:17).
Fuel for fire was gathered from the materials most readily available to seminomadic groups. Potential fuels included thorns and briers (Isa. 10:17), dried grass (Matt. 6:30; Luke 12:28), charcoal (John 18:18 NRSV), twigs or sticks (Isa. 64:2), wood (Gen. 22:6), and dried animal dung (Ezek. 4:15). Fire pits provided some means for keeping a family warm, as well as being used for cooking.
Cooking within the Urban Lifestyle
The sedentary urban lifestyle of the monarchial period provided the opportunity to construct permanent cooking and heating installations. In the four-room Israelite house, cooking normally was done in a fire pit or clay oven in the courtyard of the home. The baking oven ordinarily was located outside, but archaeologists have found cooking utensils and ovens in the central room of the house. This indoor oven also served as a means of heat during the colder wet season. The family most likely utilized the courtyard oven during the hotter dry season.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian reliefs provide illustrations of the structure of ancient ovens. Archaeologists have uncovered scores of examples of different types and sizes all across the ancient Near East. Small domestic ovens (Exod. 8:3) were made of clay in two basic forms. The first had an open top and was cylindrical in shape. It ranged from two to three feet in height and was about two feet in diameter. The second, about the same size, was more egg-shaped, with small openings at the base and in the top.
Some ovens were covered with a plastered layer of potsherds on the outside to improve insulation. They could be embedded in the ground or raised above it. The oven floor was lined with pebbles, and the fire was built upon it. Commercial ovens were larger and were concentrated in specific areas of a city (Neh. 3:11; 12:38).
Ovens and fire pits were used for cooking and heating in the home. Other hearths or heating ovens were employed to warm larger buildings or to perform specific tasks not related to food preparation. A large oval hearth was discovered in the central room of an Iron Age II house at Shechem. Jeremiah 36:22–23 speaks about a “firepot” or hearth used by Jehoiakim to warm his winter apartment. This hearth may have been a raised copper or bronze basin on a three-legged stand. A “fire basin” (NIV: “firepot”) is also mentioned in Zech. 12:6.
Cooking Utensils
Many types of pottery utensils, which were undoubtedly associated with cooking and eating, have been discovered in archaeological excavations in the ancient Near East. Although rare, metal and stone implements have also been found. One area in the tent or the home would be employed as a “kitchen.” A kitchen in the palace of Ramesses III is depicted on an Egyptian wall, and Ezekiel mentions the kitchens located in the new temple (46:24). Cooking and serving vessels included platters, bowls, chalices, jugs, juglets, and cooking pots. Storage vessels and grain pits also were needed to contain spices, oils, grains, and other foodstuffs.
Larger bowls designed specifically for cooking were in common use during the Bronze and Iron Ages. These “cooking pots” often were placed directly into the fire or on hot coals and were used to boil meat or make soups and other similar types of food. Iron Age II cooking pots from Palestine generally bore the trademark of the potter. Cooking pots had a short life and were replaced often. Because the style of these types of pots changed systematically over time, they have become very important in helping archaeologists date the particular level or stratum of a tell in which they were found.
The Cooking of Food
The type of food eaten by families also depended on their socioeconomic status and lifestyle. Food staples included milk products, wine, bread, and occasionally meat. Richer families could afford vegetables, fruits, dates, figs, and other less common foods. All types of households ate bread.
Grains. The most common grains used in bread making were wheat, barley, and spelt (Isa. 28:25). Wheat grew wild in Palestine, and there is evidence that seminomadic people stayed in one place long enough to cultivate small plots of grain. Grain could also be acquired in trade for other agricultural products such as goat’s milk or wool. Grain was winnowed to separate the chaff from the kernels (Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17). Roasted grain was grain that had been “popped” in the fire instead of being milled (1 Sam. 25:18).
After being winnowed, wheat and other grains were ground initially in a hand mill. Hand mills, or querns, were of two types. The first was a simple device of two stones. The base, or “saddle,” was a flat, elongated stone that became curved through the backward and forward motion of the upper stone. The upper, or “rider,” stone was flat on one side and curved on the top to allow the user to grip the stone with both hands. The grain was placed on the saddle, and the rider stone was run repeatedly over it to grind it. This was considered menial work (Lam. 5:13). This type of grinding may have been assigned to the blinded Samson (Judg. 16:21).
The second, later type of hand mill consisted of two stone disks approximately twelve inches in diameter. The lower stone, or base, had an upright wooden stake at the center. A hole in the upper stone allowed it to fit over the base, and a handle on the upper stone was used to rotate it against the lower stone (Matt. 24:41). Grain was fed through the central hole, and the milled flour exited along the sides. The millstone mentioned in Matt. 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2 is a larger example of this type.
Milling grain was a necessary task of the household (Jer. 25:10). Course grain was further milled into fine flour with a mortar and pestle. Course grain could be used to make boiled porridge or gruel. Finely ground flour was used in sacrificial offerings (Exod. 29:40; Lev. 2:4).
The flour was mixed with water and kneaded (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 28:24; 2 Sam. 13:8; Jer. 7:18), small amounts of leaven and salt were added, and then the bread was baked. Three methods of baking bread are mentioned in the OT: over hot coals (1 Kings 19:6; Isa. 44:19), on a griddle (Lev. 7:9; cf. Ezek. 4:3), and in an oven (Lev. 26:26). Leaven was withheld from the dough if the bread was to be made and eaten in haste (Exod. 12:39; Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24). Griddle “cakes” were also made in this fashion (Hos. 7:8; cf. Ezek. 4:12).
Bread often was baked in different shapes. Thin bread was used to scoop food from a common pot (Matt. 26:23). Other breads were formed into loaves (John 6:9). In one man’s dream a round loaf of barley bread is described as rolling down a hill and striking and overturning a tent (Judg. 7:13). Both men and women baked bread (Gen. 19:3; 1 Sam. 28:24), and priests baked bread for ritual usage (Lev. 24:5). A king could afford to have men and women as professional bakers (Gen. 40:1; 1 Sam. 8:13). Professional bakers may also have served the larger urban population (Neh. 3:11; Jer. 37:21; Hos. 7:4) in Jerusalem.
Fruits and vegetables. After settling in Canaan, the Israelites made some additions to their diet. Foodstuffs grown in cultivated gardens were now available. These included foods such as cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic (Num. 11:5). Some of these vegetables were added to stews; others were eaten uncooked. Vegetable, bean, and lentil soups were prepared in large cooking pots placed directly on the fire. Esau particularly enjoyed lentil soup (Gen. 25:30). Herbs and spices (mint, dill, and cumin) were now accessible as well (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt. 23:23). Salt came from the Dead Sea.
Fruits too were grown and harvested. Of particular interest was the olive. Olives were crushed in a press to render oil. Olive oil was used in cooking and baking. It was mixed with fine flour to make bread (1 Kings 17:12; Ezek. 16:13; cf. Num. 11:8).
Meat. When a guest arrived or when a special occasion called for it, meat was added to the stew. Meat often was boiled (2 Kings 4:38; Ezek. 24:3–5). Spices were also added (Ezek. 24:10). Since the meat was cut up to boil, this method had the advantage of avoiding the problem of ensuring that the blood was properly drained out of an animal before it could be roasted (Lev. 17:10–11). Milk could be used in the stew; however, cooking a kid in its mother’s milk was prohibited (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 14:21).
Meat was roasted over an open fire on a spit. Meat was available from flocks and through hunting. Abraham served his guests veal (Gen. 18:7); Gideon and his guests ate goat meat (Judg. 6:19); Samuel appears to have served Saul a mutton leg (1 Sam. 9:24). Contrary to ritual regulations, Hophni and Phinehas demanded meat for roasting (1 Sam. 2:13–15). Meat certainly was roasted as a sacrifice on the altar of the tabernacle and the temple. It also normally was roasted on feast days such as Passover (Exod. 12:8–9).
Fish were counted among the foods given to Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:2–3). The Israelites ate fish in Egypt (Num. 11:15), and fishermen plied their trade along the Nile (Isa. 19:8). Fishermen could hook, spear, or net fish (Job 41:1, 7; Eccles. 9:12; Ezek. 29:4; 47:10). In Israel, fish were taken from the Sea of Galilee or the Mediterranean. Jerusalem had a “Fish Gate,” where fish were sold (2 Chron. 33:14; Neh. 3:3; 12:39; Zeph. 1:10). The Phoenicians most likely exported several varieties of edible fish to Israel. Fish with fins and scales were clean, but those without fins or scales were not (Lev. 11:9–12). In Nehemiah’s day Phoenicians were selling fish to the inhabitants of Jerusalem even on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:16).
In NT times, the Phoenicians continued to import much of the fish brought into Palestine. The ministry of Jesus revolved around the smaller fishing industry on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus called several fishermen to follow him as disciples (Matt. 4:18). On a number of occasions Jesus helped his disciples to ply their trade by directing them where to cast their nets (John 21:6, 11). Fish were caught in dragnets (John 21:8) and hand nets (Matt. 4:18). After his resurrection Jesus ate fish with his disciples in Jerusalem and on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 24:42; John 21:9).
Fish became a staple of the common people (Matt. 14:17; 15:34). The fish used to feed the multitudes probably were salted. Fish normally were grilled over an open fire (John 21:9).
hom*osexuality is a sexual relationship between two members ofthe same sex. It is a controversial issue today, especially as itrelates to marriage and to serving in the ministry. Several keybiblical texts stand at the center of interpreting the Bible’sstance and teachings on this subject.
TheBiblical Texts
Genesis19 (with Ezek. 16:49–50; Jude 7).The biblical narrative regarding the degradation and destruction ofSodom and Gomorrah indicates that their sin was grievous (Gen. 18:20;see also Gen. 13:13). When the two angelic visitors arrived, the menof the city, both young and old, asked to “know” (Heb.yada’) them. As an alternative, Lot offered his two virgindaughters, intended as sexual substitutes. While the Hebrew verb usedhere occurs frequently and characteristically simply means “toknow,” ten times in Genesis it has strong overtones of sexualunion. This narrative is sometimes dismissed as a case of gang rape,whereby power over foreigners was demonstrated in sexual terms.Likewise, some suggest that because no father in contemporary Westernculture would ever offer his daughters to maintain the honor ofguests, what this passage says about hom*osexuality also reflectscultural remnants of a bygone age. Thus, the incident would havenothing to do with hom*osexuality as demonstrated in consensual,committed same-sex relationships. In light of these alternativeinterpretations, it is necessary to investigate further theimplications of this event and its subsequent interpretation inScripture.
Thereare two explicit commentaries on the Genesis narrative later in thebiblical canon. The first is provided by Ezekiel, from whom we learnthat Sodom and the surrounding cities were “arrogant, overfedand unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They werehaughty and they did detestable things before [God]” (Ezek.16:49–50). The clause “they did detestable things”must be translated that way. The interpretation “it [i.e., thearrogance] was detestable” is unacceptable because the Hebrewverb is third-person feminine plural (“they did”), andthe subject is Sodom and her sisters (the surrounding towns).Clearly, hom*osexual practice was not one singular sin there. It wasone in the midst of a culture rife with things that were “detestable”in God’s eyes. “Detestable” is used over a hundredtimes in the Hebrew Bible of things that run absolutely counter tothe nature of God. It also appears in Lev. 18; 20, addressed furtherbelow. The second direct response to the incident is Jude’scondemnation of the sexual license in Sodom and Gomorrah: the towns“gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion”(Jude 7).
Insum, Sodom and Gomorrah became the paradigm for comprehensivelydestructive evil (cf. Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14; Matt. 10:5–15;11:20–24; Luke 10:1–15), representing societies entirelycorrupt and hardened beyond repentance. This sobering characteristicis particularly evident in Jesus’ references to the cities.Furthermore, what we cannot ignore is that the Genesis narrative ofthat pervasive evil centers on the perversion of sexuality, startingwith men wanting men, followed by Lot’s offering his daughters,and then Lot’s daughters engaging their father in sexualactivity.
Judges19.Tragically, this narrative thread is not isolated in Genesis. Thesame activity appears again in Judg. 19, where some of God’speople had adopted the ways of the debased Canaanite culture aroundthem. In the narrative, a Levite stopped for the night in the town ofGibeah, a city of the tribe of Benjamin. Some men of the citydemanded that his host give them access to him, and again a virgindaughter and the Levite’s concubine were offered in his place.Human sexuality and life itself were being abused in the most heinousways; the narrative is a shocking testimony to the depths to whichhumankind can descend, as the Levite’s concubine was raped todeath over a long night.
Leviticus18:22; 20:13.The first of these passages forbids a man to “have sexualrelations with a man as one does with a woman,” indicating thatit is “detestable,” or an “abomination” (KJV;Heb. to’ebah). It is not limited to the violent hom*osexualactivity that characterized the previous narratives; rather, it is ageneral and blanket prohibition. Leviticus 20:13 pronounces the deathpenalty for that act.
Becausethese are in the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26),significant parts of which deal with ritual matters, someinterpretations view these statements as merely addressing outdatedpurity issues, not sin. Furthermore, because the death penalty isindicated, they are dismissed as no longer relevant for the church.Nevertheless, the great majority of the other prohibitions andinfractions noted in these chapters address troubling sexualactivities (“uncovering the nakedness [’erwat]of...”), including incest, adultery, andbestial*ty, all of which are still clearly unacceptable. Furthermore,Lev. 19 contains significant ethical instructions, many of whichreiterate the Ten Commandments. Thus, these texts must not bedismissed too hastily. Outside Leviticus, to’ebah is used ofidolatrous worship, sexually immoral acts, and ethical infractions.Activities that are “detestable” cannot be dismissed assimply referring to uncleanness. Finally, the wages of all sin is(not was) death (Rom. 6:23), and that lesson is soberly evident inLev. 20.
Romans1:24–32.Paul commences his comprehensive presentation of the saving work ofChrist and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit by declaring thathumankind stands utterly condemned (Rom. 1–3). The order thatGod intended for all creation has been disrupted because thecreatures made in his image neither worship nor obey him, exchanging“the truth about God for a lie” (1:25). Thus, God gavethem over to sexual impurity that explicitly includes hom*osexualactivity on the part of both genders (1:26–27). Furthermore,the list that follows condemns every reader in every time and place.In every respect, what is commensurate with the knowledge of God hasbeen intentionally rejected. None of these is in any way restrictedin its meaning by cultural assumptions.
Itis exegetically indefensible to state that Paul here refers only towomen and men who are by nature heterosexual but have chosen toengage in hom*osexual activity. Further, to claim that this has to doonly with certain kinds of sexual offenses (child molestation orritual pagan rites), or that Paul could not have known about loving,committed same-sex relationships, is to underestimate Paul’sgrasp of his own culture. There is a significant body of Hellenisticl*terature that recognizes nurturing hom*osexual relationships andexplores the possible reasons for hom*oerotic impulses; Paul mostlikely knew it well. More significantly, these limitedinterpretations misread the intent of Paul in these chapters andseriously trivialize the matters of sin and grace. The fundamentalmessage toward which Paul moves and that is the source of hope forall humankind is that the terrible price of human sin has been paidin the sacrificial blood of Christ, so that God became both just andthe one who justifies (Rom. 3:26).
FirstCorinthians 6:9–11 (1Tim. 1:10).The 1Corinthians passage states that the wicked will notinherit the kingdom of God and then lists categories of offenders:the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, “those who aresoft” (malakoi), hom*osexual offenders (arsenokoitai), thieves,the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers. The word arsenokoitaiis made up of two Greek words that indicate “male” and“to lie with sexually.” Because these two words are usedin the LXX of Lev. 18:22 (and 20:13), it is quite likely that Paulwas specifically interpreting the Leviticus passages for his ownaudience, indicating that he saw them as still applicable. Thisclearly indicates that the behavior is reprehensible. The same termreappears in 1Tim. 1:10 in a list of those who are ungodly andsinful. Again, however, what Paul goes on to say is most important interms of his message of much needed grace: “And that is whatsome of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you werejustified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit ofour God” (1Cor. 6:11).
HermeneuticalConsiderations
Instructionregarding hom*osexual practice transcends specific chronologicalperiods and genres of text. It is not only in the narrative andwarning parts of the Torah; Paul repeatedly addresses the issue,particularly as he describes fallen humankind (Rom. 1; 1Cor. 6;1Tim. 1). He does not qualify his descriptions to include onlycertain kinds of hom*osexual activity; instead, they arecomprehensive. hom*osexual practice is without exception representedin the text as morally offensive in God’s sight.
Itis often claimed that “Jesus never condemned hom*osexuality,”and therefore we should not do so. He also, however, never addressedabortion, incest, or other contemporary ills that are reprehensible.On the other hand, he repeatedly affirmed traditional marriage by hisreferences to Gen. 1:27 (“male and female he created them”)and 2:24 (“a man leaves his father and mother and is united tohis wife”) when asked about issues of marriage and divorce(Matt. 19:1–12).
Itis essential to note the deep ethical foundation that must shape thelives of all believers. God’s people are “to act justlyand to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8).This injunction refers to the redemptive community that enfoldssinners of all stripes. In fact, the truth of the Gospel is a messageof hope; it has everything to do with transformation and new life.
hom*osexuality is a sexual relationship between two members ofthe same sex. It is a controversial issue today, especially as itrelates to marriage and to serving in the ministry. Several keybiblical texts stand at the center of interpreting the Bible’sstance and teachings on this subject.
TheBiblical Texts
Genesis19 (with Ezek. 16:49–50; Jude 7).The biblical narrative regarding the degradation and destruction ofSodom and Gomorrah indicates that their sin was grievous (Gen. 18:20;see also Gen. 13:13). When the two angelic visitors arrived, the menof the city, both young and old, asked to “know” (Heb.yada’) them. As an alternative, Lot offered his two virgindaughters, intended as sexual substitutes. While the Hebrew verb usedhere occurs frequently and characteristically simply means “toknow,” ten times in Genesis it has strong overtones of sexualunion. This narrative is sometimes dismissed as a case of gang rape,whereby power over foreigners was demonstrated in sexual terms.Likewise, some suggest that because no father in contemporary Westernculture would ever offer his daughters to maintain the honor ofguests, what this passage says about hom*osexuality also reflectscultural remnants of a bygone age. Thus, the incident would havenothing to do with hom*osexuality as demonstrated in consensual,committed same-sex relationships. In light of these alternativeinterpretations, it is necessary to investigate further theimplications of this event and its subsequent interpretation inScripture.
Thereare two explicit commentaries on the Genesis narrative later in thebiblical canon. The first is provided by Ezekiel, from whom we learnthat Sodom and the surrounding cities were “arrogant, overfedand unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They werehaughty and they did detestable things before [God]” (Ezek.16:49–50). The clause “they did detestable things”must be translated that way. The interpretation “it [i.e., thearrogance] was detestable” is unacceptable because the Hebrewverb is third-person feminine plural (“they did”), andthe subject is Sodom and her sisters (the surrounding towns).Clearly, hom*osexual practice was not one singular sin there. It wasone in the midst of a culture rife with things that were “detestable”in God’s eyes. “Detestable” is used over a hundredtimes in the Hebrew Bible of things that run absolutely counter tothe nature of God. It also appears in Lev. 18; 20, addressed furtherbelow. The second direct response to the incident is Jude’scondemnation of the sexual license in Sodom and Gomorrah: the towns“gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion”(Jude 7).
Insum, Sodom and Gomorrah became the paradigm for comprehensivelydestructive evil (cf. Isa. 1:10; Jer. 23:14; Matt. 10:5–15;11:20–24; Luke 10:1–15), representing societies entirelycorrupt and hardened beyond repentance. This sobering characteristicis particularly evident in Jesus’ references to the cities.Furthermore, what we cannot ignore is that the Genesis narrative ofthat pervasive evil centers on the perversion of sexuality, startingwith men wanting men, followed by Lot’s offering his daughters,and then Lot’s daughters engaging their father in sexualactivity.
Judges19.Tragically, this narrative thread is not isolated in Genesis. Thesame activity appears again in Judg. 19, where some of God’speople had adopted the ways of the debased Canaanite culture aroundthem. In the narrative, a Levite stopped for the night in the town ofGibeah, a city of the tribe of Benjamin. Some men of the citydemanded that his host give them access to him, and again a virgindaughter and the Levite’s concubine were offered in his place.Human sexuality and life itself were being abused in the most heinousways; the narrative is a shocking testimony to the depths to whichhumankind can descend, as the Levite’s concubine was raped todeath over a long night.
Leviticus18:22; 20:13.The first of these passages forbids a man to “have sexualrelations with a man as one does with a woman,” indicating thatit is “detestable,” or an “abomination” (KJV;Heb. to’ebah). It is not limited to the violent hom*osexualactivity that characterized the previous narratives; rather, it is ageneral and blanket prohibition. Leviticus 20:13 pronounces the deathpenalty for that act.
Becausethese are in the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26),significant parts of which deal with ritual matters, someinterpretations view these statements as merely addressing outdatedpurity issues, not sin. Furthermore, because the death penalty isindicated, they are dismissed as no longer relevant for the church.Nevertheless, the great majority of the other prohibitions andinfractions noted in these chapters address troubling sexualactivities (“uncovering the nakedness [’erwat]of...”), including incest, adultery, andbestial*ty, all of which are still clearly unacceptable. Furthermore,Lev. 19 contains significant ethical instructions, many of whichreiterate the Ten Commandments. Thus, these texts must not bedismissed too hastily. Outside Leviticus, to’ebah is used ofidolatrous worship, sexually immoral acts, and ethical infractions.Activities that are “detestable” cannot be dismissed assimply referring to uncleanness. Finally, the wages of all sin is(not was) death (Rom. 6:23), and that lesson is soberly evident inLev. 20.
Romans1:24–32.Paul commences his comprehensive presentation of the saving work ofChrist and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit by declaring thathumankind stands utterly condemned (Rom. 1–3). The order thatGod intended for all creation has been disrupted because thecreatures made in his image neither worship nor obey him, exchanging“the truth about God for a lie” (1:25). Thus, God gavethem over to sexual impurity that explicitly includes hom*osexualactivity on the part of both genders (1:26–27). Furthermore,the list that follows condemns every reader in every time and place.In every respect, what is commensurate with the knowledge of God hasbeen intentionally rejected. None of these is in any way restrictedin its meaning by cultural assumptions.
Itis exegetically indefensible to state that Paul here refers only towomen and men who are by nature heterosexual but have chosen toengage in hom*osexual activity. Further, to claim that this has to doonly with certain kinds of sexual offenses (child molestation orritual pagan rites), or that Paul could not have known about loving,committed same-sex relationships, is to underestimate Paul’sgrasp of his own culture. There is a significant body of Hellenisticl*terature that recognizes nurturing hom*osexual relationships andexplores the possible reasons for hom*oerotic impulses; Paul mostlikely knew it well. More significantly, these limitedinterpretations misread the intent of Paul in these chapters andseriously trivialize the matters of sin and grace. The fundamentalmessage toward which Paul moves and that is the source of hope forall humankind is that the terrible price of human sin has been paidin the sacrificial blood of Christ, so that God became both just andthe one who justifies (Rom. 3:26).
FirstCorinthians 6:9–11 (1Tim. 1:10).The 1Corinthians passage states that the wicked will notinherit the kingdom of God and then lists categories of offenders:the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, “those who aresoft” (malakoi), hom*osexual offenders (arsenokoitai), thieves,the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers. The word arsenokoitaiis made up of two Greek words that indicate “male” and“to lie with sexually.” Because these two words are usedin the LXX of Lev. 18:22 (and 20:13), it is quite likely that Paulwas specifically interpreting the Leviticus passages for his ownaudience, indicating that he saw them as still applicable. Thisclearly indicates that the behavior is reprehensible. The same termreappears in 1Tim. 1:10 in a list of those who are ungodly andsinful. Again, however, what Paul goes on to say is most important interms of his message of much needed grace: “And that is whatsome of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you werejustified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit ofour God” (1Cor. 6:11).
HermeneuticalConsiderations
Instructionregarding hom*osexual practice transcends specific chronologicalperiods and genres of text. It is not only in the narrative andwarning parts of the Torah; Paul repeatedly addresses the issue,particularly as he describes fallen humankind (Rom. 1; 1Cor. 6;1Tim. 1). He does not qualify his descriptions to include onlycertain kinds of hom*osexual activity; instead, they arecomprehensive. hom*osexual practice is without exception representedin the text as morally offensive in God’s sight.
Itis often claimed that “Jesus never condemned hom*osexuality,”and therefore we should not do so. He also, however, never addressedabortion, incest, or other contemporary ills that are reprehensible.On the other hand, he repeatedly affirmed traditional marriage by hisreferences to Gen. 1:27 (“male and female he created them”)and 2:24 (“a man leaves his father and mother and is united tohis wife”) when asked about issues of marriage and divorce(Matt. 19:1–12).
Itis essential to note the deep ethical foundation that must shape thelives of all believers. God’s people are “to act justlyand to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8).This injunction refers to the redemptive community that enfoldssinners of all stripes. In fact, the truth of the Gospel is a messageof hope; it has everything to do with transformation and new life.
The practice of receiving strangers in order to offerprovision and protection was an important concept in many of thecultures throughout the time period of both Testaments.
Hospitalityfirst appears in Abraham’s care of the strangers who visit himin Gen. 18. The strangers in turn reveal God’s imminentfulfillment of his promise to provide a child to Abraham and Sarah.Thus, they return the good favor and kindness that they havereceived, which is the expected pattern of mutual goodwill thatcharacterizes hospitality.
Theunusual hospitality of Rebekah in offering water for Abraham’sservant’s camels distinguishes her as the wife whom God hadappointed for Isaac (Gen. 24:1–49).
Partof the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the men violate hospitalitynorms by demanding that the visiting angels have sex with them, whichis in deep contrast to Lot’s attempt to welcome and protect thevisitors (Gen. 19:1–9; see also Ezek. 16:49–50).
Aconviction of the people of Israel is that God is their host in thepromised land (Lev. 25:23). Jesus frequently is the beneficiary ofthe hospitality of others in the Gospels, and he sends out hisdisciples relying on it (Luke 9:1–4; 10:1–9). Themessianic banquet is a theme of Jesus’ teaching on the kingdomof God (Matt. 8:11; 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24). Hospitalityis also commanded to be an aspect of early Christian communities, andit is a spiritual gift (Rom. 12:8, 13; Heb. 13:2; 1Pet. 4:9).
Along with Abraham and Jacob, Isaac is a central character inthe narratives of Gen. 12–35. Isaac is the offspring of Abrahamand Sarah, the fulfillment of a promise from God of an heir forAbraham (15:4). The promise of offspring is one component in a set(protection and land being some of the others), the provisions of acovenant between God and the patriarchs (12:1–3; 17:1–8;26:2–5). The name “Isaac” is associated with theverb for “laugh” (21:3–7), referring to Sarah’sreaction upon hearing the promise of a child coming well beyond herchildbearing years (18:9–15). Sarah’s incredulity, andAbraham’s sympathy to it, may be witnessed by their attempt toenact fulfillment to the promise through the insemination of Hagar,Sarah’s slave (16:1–4, 16).
Inthe narratives of Gen. 12–35 Isaac is the least prominent ofthe patriarchs. The main event of his life is encapsulated in theincident known as the Akedah, the “binding” (22:1–19).Abraham demonstrates his loyalty to God by complying with a commandto offer Isaac as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. After an initialinquiry about the absence of a sacrificial beast, Isaac (apparently)passively follows Abraham’s directions in compliance with God’swill. A divine emissary, however, halts Abraham’s actions justprior to the slaying of Isaac.
Theprocurement of Isaac’s wife, Rebekah, by Abraham’sservant is found in Gen. 24:1–67. Like Abraham, Isaac describeshis wife as a sister in order to deflect danger to his person(26:6–11; cf. 12:10–16; 20:1–18). Rebekah bears twosons to Isaac, Esau and Jacob (25:21–26). Through theinstigation and cooperation of Rebekah, Jacob tricks Isaac intoconferring a blessing upon him, one originally intended for Esau(27:1–30).
The land of Israel is strategically located on a land bridgebetween significant geopolitical powers. About the size of NewJersey, it is geographically diverse, ranging from fertile mountainsin northern Galilee to the arid Negev steppe. It was indeed the“testing ground of faith” in which God planted hispeople.
The“Land Between”
TheMediterranean Sea to the west and the great Arabian Desert to theeast confined the flow of military and commercial traffic to thisland bridge. Throughout most of Israel’s history, Egypt and thesuccession of political entities in Mesopotamia were intent onexpanding their empires; Israel was in between. To a lesser extent,this also involved invaders coming from or through Anatolia (modernTurkey).
Thesea and the desert also affect the weather patterns as Israel isdependent on rainfall in the winter months and dew in the summer forits continued agricultural fertility. The promises regarding the“early and latter rains” (autumn and spring) indicateblessing (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24; Joel 2:23). The prospects ofdrought and famine hover over the land. These vulnerabilities toenemy attack and potential lack of rainfall figure prominently inGod’s challenge to faithful obedience (Deut. 11:10–17;28:25).
GeographicalRegions
Thereare four north-south longitudinal zones that help to define thegeography of Israel. From west to east, they are the coastal plain,the hill country, the Jordan Rift Valley, and Trans-jordan. South ofthese zones lies the Negev, a marginal region between Israel properand Sinai.
Coastalplain.The coastal plain extends almost the entire length of Israel, withthe exception of Mount Carmel’s promontory, jutting out intothe Mediterranean Sea. Because of the straight coastline, there areno natural good harbors as there are farther north in Lebanon. Thisregion characteristically was controlled by more cosmopolitan andgenerally hostile non-Israelites, the most notable being thePhilistines in the south. As a result of these factors, theIsraelites generally were not a seafaring people, and in fact theyseemed to view the sea as a place of chaos and danger (e.g., Pss.42:7; 74:13–14; Jon. 2:2–7).
Muchof the coastal plain was swampy in antiquity due to calcifiedsandstone ridges along the coastline that prevented runoff from thehills from flowing unimpeded into the sea. In addition, sand dunesalong the coast were obstacles to travel. Because this region wasrelatively flat and easily traversed along the eastern edge, theInternational Coastal Highway skirted the swamps and dunes andcarried the major traffic through the land. Erosion from the hillcountry to the east brought excellent soil to the plain. Once theswamps were drained in the twentieth century, the plains becamefertile farming areas.
Thecoastal plain has significant subdivisions. To the north of MountCarmel, the Plain of Akko includes a crescent-shaped area around thecity of Akko and extends to Rosh HaNikra, a promontory at theboundary with Lebanon. Immediately south of Mount Carmel is the smallPlain of Dor, generally under the control of foreigners and notsignificant in the biblical text. The Crocodile River separates thePlain of Dor from the Sharon Plain. In the early first century AD,Herod the Great built Caesarea Maritima on the site of Strato’sTower along the coast of the Sharon Plain and constructed an immenseartificial harbor (Josephus, Ant. 15.331–41). It was Herod’sintent for Caesarea to serve as the entry point for Roman cultureinto what he considered to be the backwaters of Palestine. In God’splan, however, the process was reversed: Caesarea became a majorChristian center, and the gospel went out through the entire RomanEmpire.
TheYarqon River, with its source at Aphek, separates the Sharon and thePhilistine plains. Because this created a bottleneck for theInternational Coastal Highway, whoever controlled Aphek had amilitary and commercial advantage. It is significant that thePhilistines were at Aphek when the Israelites took the ark of thecovenant to battle (1Sam. 4). The Philistine Plain extendsfifty miles south to Besor Wadi (dry riverbed) in the western Negev(see below). Its width ranges from about ten miles in the north totwenty-five miles in the south. The five significant Philistinecities were Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron.
Hillcountry.A mountainous spine runs from the north to the south, with severalaberrations due to seismic activity in the distant geologic past. Thehill countries of Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh are in thesouthern two-thirds of the country. Because the terrain is rugged,with steep V-shaped valleys, these regions are somewhat more isolatedand protected, especially in Judah and Ephraim. Travel in theinterior is along the north-south ridge, often called the “wayof the patriarchs” because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob journeyedthis route, stopping at Shechem, Bethel, Salem (Jerusalem), Hebron,and finally Beersheba at the southern end of the mountain range.Agriculture in the hill country is excellent when there is sufficientrainfall. The hard limestone bedrock means that springs are bountifuland the eroded terra rossa soil is productive. The triad of cropsthat appears in the Bible includes grain (“bread”), newwine, and oil (Deut. 11:14; Joel 1:10), noted in the order in whichthey are harvested.
Westof the Judean hill country are lower, rolling foothills known as theShephelah. Cut through by five significant east-west valleys, thisregion was a buffer zone between the people living in the hillcountry and the Philistines or other foreign forces passing throughon the International Coastal Highway. When Israel was particularlyvulnerable, these valleys served as invasion routes into theheartland of Judah. The most famous of these, the Elah Valley, wasthe site of the face-off between David and the Philistine warriorGoliath (1Sam.17).
Onthe eastern side of the hill country, especially in the tribal areasof Judah and Benjamin, lies the wilderness. Because most of theprecipitation falls on the western slopes of the mountain range,rainfall for the regions right around the Dead Sea (in the “rainshadow”) is less than four inches per year. Sparsely inhabited,the wilderness was occasionally a place of refuge, as when David wasfleeing from Saul (1Sam. 23–26). Generally, it was viewedas a place to pass through. When the Israelites conquered the land,they traversed the wilderness to get to the central Benjamin Plateau(Josh. 10:9–10). David fled through the wilderness when Absalomtook over the kingdom (2Sam. 15–16). When Jesus traveledfrom Jericho (below sea level) to Jerusalem, he climbed through thewilderness to an elevation of about twenty-five hundred feet abovesea level. Shepherds grazed their flocks in this area during thewinter wet months and then migrated farther north and west as the dryseason advanced. Some chose to withdraw into the wilderness, mostnotably the Qumran community along the northwestern shore of the DeadSea and the later monastic communities.
Themajor city in the rugged hill country of Ephraim was Shiloh, awell-protected location for the tabernacle and the ark of thecovenant early in Israel’s history (Judg. 18:31; 1Sam.1–4). In fact, the decision to take the ark out to battleagainst the Philistines at Aphek was catastrophic. The tribalterritory of Manasseh, north of Ephraim, was more open to foreigninfluence. The major cities were Shechem, lying between Mount Gerizimand Mount Ebal, locations for the renewal of the covenant (Josh.8:30–35; 24:1), and Samaria, eventually the capital of thenorthern kingdom. When Omri moved the capital west to Samaria(1Kings 16:24), it was a bid for more connection withcosmopolitan coastal communities and particularly with the nation ofPhoenicia to the northwest. Omri’s son Ahab married thePhoenician princess Jezebel, cementing the alliance and bringing Baalworship to Israel with even greater force.
MountCarmel, to the northwest of Samaria, served as the effective boundarybetween Israel and the expanding power of the Phoenicians. It was theperfect stage for the confrontation between Elijah and the prophetsof Baal and Asherah (1Kings 18). Due to its elevation (overseventeen hundred feet at its highest point), it normally receivesabout thirty-two inches of rain per year. At Elijah’s word,however, the rain had ceased for more than three years (1Kings17:1; James 5:17), and the glory of Carmel had withered (cf. Isa.33:9; Amos 1:2; Nah. 1:4). This was a direct challenge to thesupposed powers of Baal, the god of storm and rain. The contestapparently took place near the heights of the promontory overlookingthe Mediterranean Sea (1Kings 18:42–43). There are,however, three sections in the entire twenty-four-mile range, eachseparated from the next by a chalk pass, providing access through themountain range. At the southeastern end of Mount Carmel lies theDothan Valley, location of one of the routes connecting theInternational Coastal Highway with the major Transjordanian highway(see Gen. 37; 2Kings 6:8–23).
TheDothan Valley rests between Mount Carmel and Mount Gilboa to theeast. These two mountains, along with the Jezreel and Harod Valleyson their northern flanks, create a natural barrier between thecentral hill country and Galilee. Because of the strategic importanceof this region, the Israelites fought early defensive battles againstthe forces of Jabin king of Hazor (Judg. 4) and against theMidianites camped in the Jezreel Valley (Judg. 7). Later, thePhilistines swept through this valley, dividing the southern tribesfrom those in the north. Saul and his sons lost their lives on MountGilboa in this confrontation (1Sam. 31). The night before thebattle, Saul was so troubled by God’s silence that he venturedbehind enemy lines on Mount Moreh (directly north of Mount Gilboa) tothe town of Endor and requested a medium to summon the prophet Samuel(1Sam. 28). The city of Megiddo, situated on the edge of theJezreel Valley at the base of Mount Carmel, guarded the mostimportant pass through the mountain and was the site of numerousbattles. It may be the basis for the name “Armageddon,”“Har Megiddo” in Hebrew (Rev. 16).
Northof the Jezreel and Harod Valleys, Galilee can be divided into lowerand upper Galilee. The latter is called “upper” becauseit is both farther north and significantly higher in elevation. UpperGalilee is rugged and relatively isolated. As a result, few biblicalevents unfolded there. In fact, Galilee is seldom mentioned in theOT, with the exception of Isa. 9:1, the passage that Matthew quotesin speaking of the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee(Matt. 4:13–16).
Thewestern part of lower Galilee has ridges that run east to west,providing natural conduits for the winds from the Mediterranean Seaas they sweep eastward. This contributes to sudden and strong stormson the Sea of Galilee. The town of Nazareth is nestled near the topof the southernmost ridge, overlooking the Jezreel Valley from thenorth. This would have afforded Jesus a panoramic view of ahistorical stage as he was growing up. Nearby was Gath Hepher,hometown of the prophet Jonah (2Kings 14:25). As Jesus lookedeast, he would have seen Mount Tabor (Judg. 4–5) and MountMoreh (Judg. 7; 1Sam. 31). The “brow of the hill”at Nazareth (Luke 4:29) is a sharp precipice overlooking the JezreelValley. Although not mentioned in the Gospels, the Roman city ofSepphoris was only about three miles northwest of Nazareth, and itmight have been the place where Joseph was employed as a builder.Eastern lower Galilee is characterized by beautiful rolling hills andvalleys that slope down toward the Jordan Valley. Just west of theSea of Galilee are the cliffs of Arbel, past which the InternationalCoastal Highway made its way as it ran from the Jezreel Valley aroundMount Tabor and down into the Jordan Rift Valley.
JordanRift Valley.The Jordan Rift Valley, ranging in width from about four to fourteenmiles, is a remarkable geological cleft in the earth that extendswell beyond the immediate area of Israel. The Arabah, the Dead Sea,the Sea of Galilee, and the Huleh Valley north of the Sea of Galileelie in the Jordan Rift Valley. In modern times, the Arava (Arabah)refers to the wasteland between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Eilat(Aqaba), but in the OT the term also included the barren desert northof and around the Dead Sea (Josh. 8:14; 11:2; 1Sam. 23:24;2Sam. 2:29; 4:7). The Dead Sea was called the “Sea of theArabah” in texts that indicate its role as a boundary marker(Deut. 3:17; 4:49; Josh. 12:3; 2Kings 14:25).
Inthe Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea is called the “Sea of Salt.”The mineral content exceeds 30percent, compared to normal seasalinity of 3–5percent. These minerals include calcium,potassium, magnesium, and sodium chlorides. Nevertheless, some algaeand bacteria do survive in the sea. Bitumen (asphalt) also seeps fromthe sea floor, especially when there is more seismic activity in theregion. The salinity varies, depending on the level of the Dead Sea,which does fluctuate with variations in rainfall. The level iscurrently receding rapidly, at a rate of almost three feet per year.One reason for this is the increasing demand for water from theheadwaters of the Jordan River. The north end of the sea, at aboutthirteen hundred feet below sea level, is the lowest place on earth,and the depth of the water at that point is more than one thousandfeet.
TheJordan River Valley north of the Dead Sea is approximately sixty-fivemiles long, and the Jordan River winds for over 120 miles. The name“Jordan” comes from the Hebrew word yarad, which means“to descend.” The Sea of Galilee is 690 feet below sealevel, so there is a significant drop between that point and thenorth end of the Dead Sea.
Keycities in the Jordan Valley include Jericho, just north of the DeadSea, and Beth Shan, at the junction of the Harod and Jordan valleys.The first city to be conquered (Josh. 6), Jericho represented thevulnerable “underbelly” of Canaan and paved the way forthe campaigns that swept first through the south and then the north(Josh. 9–11). Beth Shan was under Philistine control in theearly Israelite period. Later, it became the one Decapolis city westof the Jordan River and was known as Scythopolis.
TheJordan Valley has three sections. The entire expanse is called the“Ghor,” an Arabic name. The river valley itself is calledthe “Zhor,” and it includes the “pride” orthickets of the Jordan, a dense tangle of lush underbrush in whichlions could be found in the biblical period (Jer. 12:5; 49:19; 50:44;Zech. 11:3). In between the Ghor and the Zhor is the Qatarra,lifeless marl terraces. In antiquity, during flood stage the JordanRiver could be a mile wide. The Israelites crossed the Jordan in thespringtime, near Passover, when the river was at flood stage (Josh.3:15; 5:10).
TheJordan River has its headwaters north of the Sea of Galilee at thebase of Mount Hermon. It provides a constant source of freshwatercoming into the seven-by-thirteen-mile body of water. In addition,there are salt springs in the northwestern corner. These contributeto the good fishing in that part of the sea. The Hebrew name is “Yam[Sea of] Kinnereth” (Num. 34:11; Josh. 12:3; 13:27). It wasalso known as the Sea of Tiberias (John 6:1; 21:1) and the Lake ofGennesaret (Luke 5:1). This last name comes from the fertile plainaround the northwestern corner of the lake and the city of Gennesareton that plain.
Theministry of Jesus unfolded around the Sea of Galilee after he movedhis base of operations from Nazareth to Capernaum (Matt. 4:13), atthe northern end of the sea. Nearby were the cities of Bethsaida andChorazin, which, along with Capernaum, Jesus condemned for notbelieving even though he worked miracles in their midst (Matt.11:20–24). The city of Capernaum profited from the industriesof fishing and oil pressing. It was also a likely place for a taxcollector, as it was close to the border between Herod Antipas’sGalilee and Herod Philip’s territories to the east. Across thelake, in non-Jewish territory, was the town of Gergesa, perhaps thesite where Jesus sent the legion of demons into a herd of pigs (Mark5:1–20pars.).
Justnorth of the Sea of Galilee is an elevated sill, formed by a basaltflow across the Golan Heights and over this section of the JordanRift Valley. Hazor, a major site of some two hundred acres, satastride the sill and dominated the northern region in the Late Bronzeand Israelite periods. Hazor is mentioned in texts from both Mari inMesopotamia and El Amarna in Egypt.
TheHuleh Valley, north of the sill, is twenty miles in length andreceives about twenty-four inches of rain per year, making it amarshland swamp in antiquity that was called “LakeSemechonitis.” The International Coastal Highway made its wayalong the western edge of the valley, turned eastward past MountHermon, and continued to Damascus.
Transjordan.On the eastern side of the Jordan Rift Valley, at the very northernextent of Israel, Mount Hermon rises to nine thousand feet. Abundantprecipitation percolating through the limestone results in prolificsprings at its base. These are the headwaters of the Jordan River,the two most important of which are at Dan and Caesarea Philippi.With the abundance of water and lush surroundings, it is notsurprising that Dan was a tempting location for the tribe of Dan toresettle, given their precarious position between the tribe of Judahand the Philistines to the west. The idols set up at that point(Judg. 18:30–31) established a precedent for Jeroboam’schoice to position one of the golden calves there as an alternativeto worship in distant Jerusalem (1Kings 12:29–30).Another name for Caesarea Philippi is “Panias” (modernArabic, “Banias”), in celebration of the god Pan. Therock face from which the spring poured forth is covered with nichesfor pagan gods; Herod the Great also built a temple to Augustus. Inthis context, Peter declared that Jesus was the Christ, the Son ofthe “living” God (Matt. 16:16).
Theregion south of Mount Hermon was Bashan in the OT period. In the NTera it consisted of a number of small provinces. One of those wasGaulanitis, which is recognizable in the modern name “Golan.”With significant annual rainfall (about forty inches per year), thenatural vegetation includes trees and rich pasture that supportslarge herds (cf. the “bulls of Bashan” in Ps. 22:12;Ezek. 39:18).
Separatingthe region of Bashan from Lower Gilead is the Yarmuk River Gorge, asignificant natural boundary. There was an ongoing contest betweenthe northern kingdom of Israel and Syria to the northeast to controlthe key site of Ramoth Gilead (1Kings 22; 2Kings 9).Cutting through the elevated Dome of Gilead is the Jabbok River, thesite of Jacob’s wrestling match with God (Gen. 32).
Thearea to the east and south of the Dead Sea includes the plains ofMoab (Mishor), extending north of the Arnon River Gorge; geopoliticalMoab, between the Arnon and the Zered rivers; and Edom, reaching fromthe Zered down to the northern end of the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba). Tothe east of the Mishor lay the kingdom of Ammon. According to Gen.19, Moab and Ammon were descendants of Lot by his daughters. Whenthey fled eastward from Sodom and Gomorrah, this was the general areathey settled.
Transjordanwas significant in the OT as the Israelites skirted Edom, conqueredthe cities of the Amorites and the king of Bashan, and encounteredMoab enroute to the promised land (Num. 20–25). Thetribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh requested theright to settle in Transjordan after the conquest of the land wascompleted (Num. 32). In the ensuing centuries these tribes sufferedthe ravages of war on the eastern front (Judg. 10:8; 1Sam.11:1; 2Kings 15:29; 1Chron. 5:23–26). In theintertestamental period most of northern and central Transjordan cameunder Hellenistic control. Decapolis cities were located in Bashan,Gilead, and as far south as Philadelphia, at the site of modernAmman.
Negev.To the south of the Judean hill country lies the Negev, whose namemeans both “dry” and “south.” The biblicalNegev is a smaller region shaped somewhat like a bowtie, withBeersheba at the center, Arad in the eastern basin, and Gerarcontrolling the western basin. The south end of the Philistine plainmerges with the western Negev. In the patriarchal period there weretensions over water rights between the herdsmen of Abraham and Isaacand those of the Philistine king Abimelek (Gen. 21:22–34;26:12–33). Although the region only receives eight to twelveinches of rainfall per year, this was sufficient to sustain smallpopulations, especially if they conserved water. The soil of theNegev is loess, a windblown powder from which the water simply runsoff unless catch basins are constructed.
Thebiblical Negev is bounded by the greater Negev to the south, whererugged limestone ridges predominate. An artificial line drawn fromGaza to Eilat, at the northern end of the Gulf of Eilat, defines thesouthwestern boundary of the greater Negev; the Jordan Rift Valley isthe eastern boundary. The Negev was historically a corridor for spicetrade coming from southwestern Arabia and India on the “ship ofthe desert” (the camel) to reach the Mediterranean markets. TheNabateans, Arab commercial nomads who knew the secrets of the desert,flourished in the spice trade from the fourth to the first centuriesBC. Once the Romans co-opted the spice trade, the Nabateans builtcities, developed water conservation techniques, and grew extensivevineyards.
TheTesting Ground of Faith
Becausethe land is marginal in terms of both sufficient rainfall andnational security, God’s covenant people faced the constantchallenge of obedience. The temptations to worship the Canaanite godsfor agricultural fertility and to form alliances with more-powerfulneighbors instead of putting their trust in God were powerful. Oftenthey succumbed and then experienced God’s chastisem*nt thatthey might return to him (Lev. 26). Even the land itself wouldexperience pollution due to the sins of its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).In sum, the land was much more than living space; it was an integralpart of the Israelites’ identity as God’s covenantpeople. When it was flowing with “milk and honey,” thepeople experienced the shalom of God.
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Mentioned only in the OT in most Bible versions (MSG uses“nose” in the NT as part of English idioms; e.g., Matt.13:57; 21:32), the nose often is referred to in the context ofjewelry, as nose rings for women were a fine adornment in ancientHebrew culture (Gen. 24:47; Ezek. 16:12), in some cases indicative ofextravagance (Isa. 3:16–24). Other times, a stronger partywould direct a weaker party by means of a hook or a cord in theirnose (2Kings 19:28; 2Chron. 33:11; Job 40:24).
TheHebrew word for nose, ’ap, could be used metaphorically foranger, much as English speakers might say that an angry person “hassteam coming out of his nose.” Thus, the NIV’s “[he]became angry” can translate the Hebrew phrase “[his] noseburned” (Gen. 30:2; Judg. 10:7). The same Hebrew term can alsorefer to nostrils. The NIV uses the translation “nostrils”several times in the OT, often in poetry, usually in connection withbreath (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; 2Sam. 22:16 [cf. Ps. 18:15]; Job 27:3)or as a source of smoke (2Sam. 22:9 [cf. Ps. 18:8]; Job 41:20).
TheHebrews also used ’ap to refer to the entire face, normallywhen a person was bowing facedown. In such instances, “boweddown with his face to the ground” translates the Hebrew phrase“bowed down with nostrils [’appayim] toward the ground”(Gen. 19:1; 1Sam. 25:41).
Mentioned only in the OT in most Bible versions (MSG uses“nose” in the NT as part of English idioms; e.g., Matt.13:57; 21:32), the nose often is referred to in the context ofjewelry, as nose rings for women were a fine adornment in ancientHebrew culture (Gen. 24:47; Ezek. 16:12), in some cases indicative ofextravagance (Isa. 3:16–24). Other times, a stronger partywould direct a weaker party by means of a hook or a cord in theirnose (2Kings 19:28; 2Chron. 33:11; Job 40:24).
TheHebrew word for nose, ’ap, could be used metaphorically foranger, much as English speakers might say that an angry person “hassteam coming out of his nose.” Thus, the NIV’s “[he]became angry” can translate the Hebrew phrase “[his] noseburned” (Gen. 30:2; Judg. 10:7). The same Hebrew term can alsorefer to nostrils. The NIV uses the translation “nostrils”several times in the OT, often in poetry, usually in connection withbreath (Gen. 2:7; 7:22; 2Sam. 22:16 [cf. Ps. 18:15]; Job 27:3)or as a source of smoke (2Sam. 22:9 [cf. Ps. 18:8]; Job 41:20).
TheHebrews also used ’ap to refer to the entire face, normallywhen a person was bowing facedown. In such instances, “boweddown with his face to the ground” translates the Hebrew phrase“bowed down with nostrils [’appayim] toward the ground”(Gen. 19:1; 1Sam. 25:41).
The biblical corpus known as the Pentateuch consists of thefirst five books of the OT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, andDeuteronomy. The word “Pentateuch” comes from two Greekwords (penta [“five”] and teuchos [“scroll case,book”]) and is a designation attested in the early churchfathers. The collection is also commonly known as the “FiveBooks of Moses,” “the Law of Moses,” or simply the“Law,” reflecting the traditional Jewish name “Torah,”meaning “law” or “instruction.” The Torah isthe first of three major sections that comprise the Hebrew Bible(Torah, Nebiim, Ketubim [Law, Prophets, Writings]); thus for bothJewish and Christian traditions it represents the introduction to theBible as a whole as well as its interpretive foundation.
TheEnglish names for the books of the Pentateuch came from the LatinVulgate, based on the Greek Septuagint. These appellations are mainlydescriptive of their content. Genesis derives from “generations”or “origin,” Exodus means “going out,”Leviticus represents priestly (Levitical) service, Numbers refers tothe censuses taken in the book, and Deuteronomy indicates “secondlaw” because of Moses’ rehearsal of God’s commands(see Deut. 17:18). The Hebrew designations derive from opening wordsin each book. Beresh*t (Genesis) means “in the beginning”;Shemot (Exodus), “[these are] the names”; Wayyiqra’(Leviticus), “and he called”; Bemidbar (Numbers), “inthe desert”; and Debarim (Deuteronomy), “[these are] thewords.”
Referringto the Pentateuch as “Torah” or the “Law”reflects the climactic reception of God’s commands at MountSinai, which were to govern Israel’s life and worship in thepromised land, including their journey to get there. However, callingthe Pentateuch the “Law” can be a bit misleading becausethere are relatively few passages that simply list a set of commands,and all law passages are set within a broad narrative. The Pentateuchis a grand story that begins on a universal scale with the creationof the cosmos and ends on the plains of Moab as the readeranticipates the fulfillment of God’s plan to redeem a fallenworld through his chosen people. The books offer distinct qualitiesand content, but they are also inherently dependent upon one another,as the narrative remains unbroken through the five volumes. Genesisends with Jacob’s family in Egypt, and, though many years havepassed, this is where Exodus begins. Leviticus outlines cultic lifeat the tabernacle (constructed at the end of Exodus) and even beginswithout a clear subject (“And he called...”),which requires the reader to supply “the Lord” from thelast verse of Exodus. Numbers begins with an account of Israel’sfighting men as the nation prepares to leave Sinai, and Deuteronomyis Moses’ farewell address to the nation on the cusp of thepromised land.
Authorshipand Composition
Althoughthe Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christiantradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of thestory from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing theauthorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidencewithin both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at leastportions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicitliterary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Exod. 17:14;24:4; 34:28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied invarious literary formulas such as “the Lord said to Moses”(e.g., Exod. 39:1, 7, 21; Lev. 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Num. 1:1; 2:1).Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, whichuse terms such as “the Book of the Law of Moses” invarious forms and references in the preexilic history (Josh. 8:30–35;23:6; 2Kings 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g.,2Chron. 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 13:1). The same titles are usedby NT authors (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:44; John 1:45), evenreferring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” atvarious points (e.g., Luke 16:29; 24:27; 2Cor. 3:15).
Evenwith these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state thatMoses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch orthat he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factorspoint to a later hand at work: Moses’ death and burial arereferenced (Deut. 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past(Deut. 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people andplaces were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan”in Gen. 14:14; cf. Josh. 19:47; Judg. 18:28b–29). Based onthese factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuchunderwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish lifeand took its final shape after Moses’ lifetime.
Overthe last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academicdiscussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory wascrystallized by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena to the Historyof Israel in the late nineteenth century and posits that thePentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived fromdistinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted andjoined through a long and complex process. Traditionally thesedocuments are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is adocument authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) inJudah around 840 BC and is so called because the name “Yahweh”is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist”because of its preference for the divine title “Elohim”and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for“Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in thatbook; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621BC. The P document reflects material that priests would be concernedwith in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theoryand its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over variousliterary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doubletsand duplications in the text; observable patterns of style,terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts,descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.
Variousdocumentary theories of composition have flourished over the lastcentury of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents.However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and characterof the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the texthave many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question theaccuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories.Moreover, if the literary observations used to create sourcedistinctions can be explained in other ways, then the DocumentaryHypothesis is significantly undermined.
Inits canonical form, the pentateuchal narrative combines artisticprose, poetry, and law to tell a dramatic history spanning thousandsof years. One could divide the story into six major sections:primeval history (Gen. 1–11), the patriarchs (Gen. 12–50),liberation from Egypt (Exod. 1–18), Sinai (Exod. 19:1–Num.10:10), wilderness journey (Num. 10:11–36:13), and Moses’farewell (Deuteronomy).
PrimevalHistory (Gen. 1–11)
Itis possible to divide Genesis into two parts based upon subjectmatter: the origin of creation and humankind’s call, fall, andpunishment (chaps 1–11), and the origin of a family that wouldbecome God’s conduit of salvation and blessing for the world(chaps. 12–50).
Theprimeval history comprises essentially the first eleven chapters ofGenesis, ending with the genealogy of Abraham in 11:26. Strictlyspeaking, 11:27 begins the patriarchal section with the sixthinstance of the toledot formula found in Genesis, referencingAbraham’s father, Terah. The Hebrew phrase ’elleh toledot(“these are the generations of”) occurs in eleven placesin Genesis and reflects a deliberate structural marker that one mayuse to divide the book into distinct episodes (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1;11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2).
Genesisas we know it exhibits two distinct creation accounts in its firsttwo chapters. Although critical scholars contend that the differingaccounts reflect contradictory stories and different authors, it isjust as convenient to recognize that the two stories vary in styleand some content because they attempt to accomplish different aims.The first account, 1:1–2:3, is an artistic, poetic,symmetrical, and “heavenly” view of creation by atranscendent God, who spoke creation into being. In the secondaccount, 2:4–25, God is immanently involved with creation as heis present in a garden, breathes life into Adam’s nostrils,dialogues and problem-solves, fashions Eve from Adam’s side,and bestows warnings and commands. Both perspectives are foundationalfor providing an accurate view of God’s interaction withcreation in the rest of Scripture.
Asone progresses through chapters 1–11, the story quickly changesfrom what God has established as “very good” to discord,sin, and shame. Chapter 3 reflects the “fall” of humanityas Adam and Eve sin in eating from the forbidden tree in directdisobedience to God. The serpent shrewdly deceives the first couple,and thus all three incur God’s curses, which extend tounlimited generations. Sin that breaks the vertical relationshipbetween God and humanity intrinsically leads to horizontal strifebetween humans. Sin and disunity on the earth only intensify as onemoves from the murder story of Cain and Abel in chapter 4 to theflood in chapters 5–9. Violence, evil, and disorder have sopervaded the earth that God sends a deluge to wipe out all livingthings, save one righteous man and his family, along with an ark fullof animals. God makes the first covenant recorded in the biblicalnarrative with Noah (6:18), promising to save him from the flood ashe commands Noah to build an ark and gather food for survival. Noahfulfills all that God has commanded (6:22; 7:5), and God remembershis promise (8:1). This is the prototypical salvation story for therest of Scripture.
Chapter9 reflects a new start for humanity and all living things as thecreation mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fillthe earth and subdue it,” first introduced in 1:28, is restatedalong with the reminder that humankind is made in God’s image(1:27). Bearing the image involves new responsibilities andstipulations in the postdiluvian era (9:2–6). There will beenmity between humans and animals, animals are now appropriate food,and yet lifeblood will be specially revered. God still requiresaccountability for just and discriminate shedding of blood andorderly relationships, as he has proved in the deluge, but now herelinquishes this responsibility to humankind. In return, Godpromises never to destroy all flesh again, and he will set therainbow in the sky as a personal reminder. Like the covenant withNoah in 6:18, the postdiluvian covenant involves humankind fulfillingcommands (9:1–7) and God remembering his covenant (9:8–17),specially termed “everlasting” (9:16).
Theprimeval commentary on humankind’s unabating sinful condition(e.g., 6:5; 8:21) proves true as Noah becomes drunk and naked and hisson Ham (father of Canaan) shames him by failing to conceal hisfather’s negligence. Instead of multiplying, filling, andsubduing the earth as God has intended, humankind collaborates tomake a name for itself by building a sort of stairway to heavenwithin a special city (11:4). God foils such haughty plans byscattering the people across the earth and confusing their language.Expressed in an orderly chiastic structure, the story of the tower ofBabel demonstrates that God condescends (11:5) to set things straightwith humanity.
Patriarchs(Gen. 12–50)
Althoughthe primeval history is foundational for understanding the rest ofthe Bible, more space in Genesis is devoted to the patriarchalfigures Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In general, the Abrahamicnarrative spans chapters 12–25, the story of Isaac serves as atransition to the Jacob cycle of chapters 25–37, and the Josephnarrative finishes the book of Genesis in chapters 37–50.
Thetransition from the primeval history to the patriarchs (11:27–32)reveals how Abraham, the father of Israel, moves from the east andsettles in Harran as the family ventures to settle in Canaan. InHarran, Abraham receives the call of God’s redemptive plan,which reverberates through Scripture. God will bless him with land,make him a great nation, grant him special favor, and use him as aconduit of blessings to the world (12:1–3). In 11:30 is theindication that the barrenness of Abraham’s wife (Sarah)relates to the essence of God’s magnificent promises. How onebecomes great in name and number, secures enemy territory, and is tobless all peoples without a descendant becomes the compellingquestion of the Abrahamic narrative. The interchange betweenAbraham’s faith in God and his attempts to contrive covenantfulfillment colors the entire narrative leading up to chapter 22. Itis there that Abraham’s faith is ultimately put to the test asGod asks him to sacrifice the promised son, Isaac. Abraham passesGod’s faith test, and a ram is provided to take Isaac’splace. This everlasting covenant that was previously sealed by thesign of circumcision is climactically procured for future generationsthrough Abraham’s exemplary obedience (22:16–18; cf.15:1–21; 17:1–27).
Thepatriarchal stories that follow show that the Abrahamic promises arerenewed with subsequent generations (see 26:3–4; 28:13–14)and survive various threats to fulfillment. The story of Isaac servesmainly as a bridge to the Jacob cycle, as he exists primarily as apassive character in relation to Abraham and Jacob.
Deception,struggle, rivalry, and favoritism characterize the Jacob narrative,as first exemplified in the jostling of twin boys in Rebekah’swomb (25:22). Jacob supplants his twin brother, Esau, for thefirstborn’s blessing and birthright. He flees to Paddan Aram(northern Mesopotamia), marries two sisters, takes their maidservantsas concubines, and has eleven children, followed by a falling-outwith his father-in-law. Jacob’s struggle for God’sblessing that began with Esau comes to a head in his wrestlingencounter with God at Peniel. Ultimately, Jacob emerges victoriousand receives God’s blessing and a name change, “Israel”(“one who struggles with God”). Throughout the Jacobstory, God demonstrates his faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenantand reiterates the promises to Jacob, most notably at Bethel (chaps.28; 35). The interpersonal strife of Jacob’s life is thusenveloped within a message of reconciliation not just with Esau(chap. 33) but ultimately with God. The reader learns from theepisodes in Jacob’s life that although God works through thelives of weak and failing people, his promises for Israel remainsecure.
AlthoughJacob and his family are already living in Canaan, God intends forthem to move to Egypt and grow into a powerful nation beforefulfilling their conquest of the promised land (see 15:13–16).The story of Joseph explains how the family ends up in Egypt at theclose of Genesis. Joseph is specially loved by his father, whichelicits significant jealousy from his brothers, who sell him off tosome nomads and fabricate the alibi that he has been killed by a wildbeast. Joseph winds up in Pharaoh’s household and eventuallybecomes his top official. When famine strikes Canaan years later,Joseph’s brothers go to Egypt to purchase food from the royalcourt, and Joseph reveals his identity to them in an emotionalreunion. Jacob’s entire family moves to Egypt to live for atime in prosperity under Joseph’s care. The Joseph storyillustrates the mysterious relationship of human decision and divinesovereignty (50:20).
Liberationfrom Egypt (Exod. 1–18)
Genesisshows how Abraham develops into a large family. Exodus shows how thisfamily becomes a nation—enslaved, freed, and then taught theways of God. Although it appears that Exodus continues a rivetingstory of God’s chosen people, it is actually the identity andpower of God that take center stage.
Manyyears have passed since Joseph’s family arrived in Egypt. TheHebrews’ good standing in Egypt has also diminished as theirmultiplication and fruitfulness during the intervening period—justas God had promised Abraham (Gen. 17:4–8)—became anational threat to the Egyptians. Abraham’s family will spendtime in Egyptian slavery before being liberated with many possessionsin hand (cf. Gen. 15:13–14).
Inthe book of Exodus the drama of suffering and salvation serves as thevehicle for God’s self-disclosure to a single man, Moses. Mosesis an Israelite of destiny even from birth, as he providentiallyavoids infant death and rises to power and influence in Pharaoh’shousehold. Moses never loses his passion for his own people, and hekills an Egyptian who was beating a fellow Hebrew. Moses flees toobscurity in the desert, where he meets God and his call to lead hispeople out of Egypt and to the promised land (3:7–8; 6:8). Likethe days of Noah’s salvation, God has remembered his covenantwith the patriarchs and responded to the groans of his people inEgypt (2:24; 6:4–5; cf. Gen. 8:1). God reveals himself, and hispersonal name “Yahweh” (“I am”), to Moses inthe great theophany of the burning bush at Mount Horeb (Sinai), thesame place where later he will receive God’s law. Moses doubtshis own ability to carry out the task of confronting Pharaoh andleading the exodus, but God foretells that many amazing signs andwonders not only will make the escape possible but also willultimately reveal the mighty nature of God to the Hebrews, Egypt, andpresumably the world (6:7; 7:5).
Thispromise of creating a nation of his people through deliverance issuccinctly conveyed in the classic covenant formula that findssignificance in the rest of the OT: “I will take you as my ownpeople, and I will be your God” (6:7). Wielding great powerover nature and at times even human decision, God “hardens”Pharaoh’s heart and sends ten plagues to demonstrate his favorfor his own people and wrath against their enemy nation. The tenthplague on the firstborn of all in Egypt provides the context for thePassover as God spares the firstborn of Israel in response to theplacement of sacrificial blood on the doorposts of their homes.Pharaoh persists in the attempt to overtake the Israelites in thedesert, where the power of God climaxes in parting the Red Sea (orSea of Reeds). The Israelites successfully pass through, buttheEgyptian army drowns in pursuit. This is the great salvationevent of the OT.
Thesong of praise for God’s deliverance (15:1–21) quicklyturns to cries of groaning in the seventy days following the exodusas the people of the nation, grumbling about their circ*mstances inthe desert, quickly demonstrate their fleeting trust in the one whohas saved them (Exod. 15:22–18:27). When a shortage of waterand food confronts the people, their faith in God’s care provesshallow, and they turn on Moses. Even though the special marks ofGod’s protection have been evident in the wilderness throughthe pillars of cloud and fire, the angel of God, the provision ofmanna and quail, water from the rock, and the leadership of Moses,the nation continually fails God’s tests of trust and obedience(16:4; cf. 17:2; 20:20). Yet God continues to endure with his peoplethrough the leadership of Moses.
Sinai(Exod. 19:1–Num. 10:10)
Mostof the pentateuchal narrative takes place at Mount Sinai. It is therethat Israel receives national legislation and prescriptions for thetabernacle, the priesthood, feasts and festivals, and othercovenantal demands for living as God’s chosen people. Theeleven-month stay at Sinai takes the biblical reader through thecenter of the Pentateuch, covering approximately the last half ofExodus, all of Leviticus, and the first third of Numbers, before thenation leaves this sacred site and sojourns in the wilderness.Several key sections of the Pentateuch fall withinthe Sinaistory: the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17), the Book of the Covenant(Exod. 20:22–23:33), the tabernacle prescriptions (Exod.25–31), the tabernacle construction (Exod. 35–40), themanual on ritual worship (Lev. 1–7), and the Holiness Code(Lev. 17–27).
Theevents and instruction at Sinai are central to the Israelitereligious experience and reflect the third eternal covenant that Godestablishes in the Pentateuch—this time with Israel, wherebythe Sabbath is the sign (Exod. 31:16; cf. Noahic/rainbow covenant[Gen. 9:16] and the Abrahamic/circumcision covenant [Gen. 17:7, 13,19]). The offices of prophet and priest develop into clear view inthis portion of the Pentateuch. Moses exemplifies the dual propheticfunction of representing the people when speaking with God and, inturn, God when speaking to the people. The priesthood is bestowedupon Aaron and his descendants in Exodus and inaugurated within oneof the few narrative sections of Leviticus (Lev. 8–10). Thegiving of the law, the ark, the tabernacle, the priesthood, and theSabbath are all a part of God’s making himself “known”to Israel and the world, which is a constant theme in Exodus (see,e.g., 25:22; 29:43, 46; 31:13).
TheIsraelites’ stay at Sinai opens with one of the greatesttheophanies of the Bible: God speaks aloud to the people (Exod.19–20) and then is envisioned as a consuming fire (Exod. 24).After communicating the Ten Commandments (“ten words”)directly to the people (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), Mosesmediates the rest of the detailed obligations that will govern thefuture life of the nation. The covenant is ratified in ceremonialfashion (Exod. 24), and the Israelites vow to fulfill all that hasbeen spoken. God expects Israel to be a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) withwhom he may dwell, but Moses descends Sinai only to find that theIsraelites have already violated the essence of the Decalogue byfashioning a golden calf to worship as that which delivered them fromEgypt (Exod. 32). This places Israel’s future and calling injeopardy, but Moses intercedes for his people, and God graciouslypromises to preserve the nation and abide with it in his mercy, evenwhile punishing the guilty. This becomes prototypical of God’srelationship with his people in the future (Exod. 34:6–7).
Exodusends with the consecration of the tabernacle and the descent of God’spresence there. With the tent of worship in order, the priesthood andits rituals can be officially established. Leviticus reflects divineinstructions for how a sinful people may live safely in closeproximity to God. Holy living involves dealing with sin andminimizing the need for atonement, purification, and restitution. Thesacrificial and worship system established in Leviticus is based on aworldview of order, perfection, and purity, which should characterizea people who are commanded, “Be holy because I, the Lord yourGod, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2; cf. 11:44–45; 20:26). Withthese rules in place, the Israelites can make final preparations todepart Sinai and move forward on their journey. Numbers 1–10spans a nineteen-day period of such activities as the Israelitesbegin to focus on dispossessing their enemies. These chapters reflecta census of fighting men, the priority of purity, the dedication ofthe tabernacle, and the observance of the Passover before commencingthe quest to Canaan.
WildernessJourney (Num. 10:11–36:13)
Therest of the book of Numbers covers the remainder of a forty-yearstretch of great peaks and valleys in the faith and future of thenation. Chapters 11–25 recount the various events that show theexodus generation’s lack of trust in God. Chapters 26–36reveal a more positive section whereby a new generation prepares forthe conquest. With the third section of Numbers framed by episodesinvolving the inheritance rights of Zelophehad’s daughters(27:1–11; 36:1–13), it is clear that the story has turnedtothe future possession of the land.
Afterthe departure from Sinai, the narrative consists of a number ofIsraelite complaints in the desert. The Israelites have grown tiredof manna and ironically crave the food of Egypt, which they recall asfree fish, fruits, and vegetables. Having forgotten the hardship oflife in slavery, about which they had cried out to God, now thenation is crying out for a lifestyle of old. Moses becomes sooverwhelmed with the complaints of the people that God providesseventy elders, who, to help shoulder the leadership burden, willreceive the same prophetic spirit given to Moses.
Inchapters 13–14 twelve spies are sent out from Kadesh Barnea toperuse Canaan, but the people’s lack of faith to procure theland from the mighty people there proves costly. This final exampleof distrust moves God to punish and purify the nation. Theunbelieving generation will die in the wilderness during a forty-yearperiod of wandering.
Thediscontent in the desert involves not only food and water but alsoleadership status. Moses’ own brother and sister resent hisspecial relationship with God and challenge his exclusive authority.Later, Aaron’s special high priesthood is threatened as anotherLevitical family (Korah) vies for preeminence. Through a sequence ofsigns and wonders, God makes it clear that Moses and Aaron haveexclusive roles in God’s economy. Due to the deaths related toKorah’s rebellion and the fruitless staffs that represent thetribes of Israel, the nation’s concern about sudden extinctionin the presence of a holy God is appeased through the eternalcovenant of priesthood granted to Aaron’s family (chap. 18). Heand the Levites, at the potential expense of their own lives and aspart of their priestly service, will be held accountable for keepingthe tabernacle pure of encroachers.
Evenafter the people’s significant rebellion and punishment, Godcontinues to prove his faithfulness to his word. Hope is restored forthe nation as the Abrahamic promises of blessing are rehearsed fromthe mouth of Balaam, a Mesopotamian seer. The Israelites will indeedone day be numerous (23:10), enjoy the presence of God (23:21), beblessed and protected (24:9), and have a kingly leader (24:17). Thiswonderful mountaintop experience of hope for the exodus generation istragically countered by an even greater event of apostasy in thesubsequent scene. Reminiscent of the incident of the golden calf,when pagan revelry in the camp had foiled Moses’ interactionwith God on Sinai, apostasy at the tabernacle undermines Balaam’soracles of covenant fulfillment. Fornication with Moabite women notonly joins the nation to a foreign god but also betrays God’sholiness at his place of dwelling. If not for the zeal of Aaron’sgrandson Phinehas, who puts an end to the sin, the ensuing plaguecould have finished the nation. For his righteous action, Phinehas isawarded an eternal priesthood and ensures a future for the nation andAaron’s priestly lineage.
Inchapter 26 a second census of fighting men indicates that the old,unbelieving exodus generation has officially died off (except forJoshua and Caleb), and God is proceeding with a new people. Goddispossesses the enemies of the new generation; reinstates the tribalboundaries of the land; reinstates rules concerning worship, service,and bloodshed; and places Joshua at the helm of leadership. Chapters26–36 mention no deaths or rebellions as the nationoptimistically ends its journey in Moab, just east of the promisedland.
Moses’Farewell (Deuteronomy)
Althoughone could reasonably move into the historical books at the end ofNumbers, much would be lost in overstepping Deuteronomy. Deuteronomypresents Moses’ farewell speeches as his final words to anation on the verge of Caanan. Moses’ speeches are best viewedas sermons motivating his people to embrace the Sinai covenant, lovetheir God, and choose life over death and blessings over cursings(30:19). Moses reviews the desert experience since Mount Horeb/Sinai(chaps. 1–4) and recapitulates God’s expectations forlawful living in the land (chaps. 5–26). The covenant code isrecorded on a scroll, is designated the “Book of the Law”(31:24–26), and is to be read and revered by the future king.Finally, Moses leads the nation in covenant renewal (chaps. 29–32)before the book finishes with an account of his death (chaps. 33–34),including tributes such as “since then, no prophet has risen inIsrael like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (34:10).
Deuteronomyreflects that true covenant faithfulness is achieved from a rightheart for God. If there were any previous doubts about the essence ofcovenant keeping, Moses eliminates such in Deuteronomy with thefrequent use of emotive terms. Loving God involves committing to himalone and spurning idols and foreign gods. The Ten Commandments(chap. 5) are not a list of stale requirements; they reflect thegreat Shema with the words “Love the Lord your God with allyour heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. Thesecommandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts”(6:5–6). God desires an unrivaled love from the nation, notcold and superficial religiosity.
Obedienceby the Israelites will incur material and spiritual blessing, whereasdisobedience ends in the loss of both. Although Moses stronglycommends covenant obedience, and the nation participates in acovenant-renewal ceremony (chap. 27), it is clear that in the futurethe Israelites will fail to uphold their covenant obligations andwill suffer the consequences (29:23; 30:1–4; 31:16–17).Yet Moses looks to a day when the command for circumcised hearts(10:16) will be fulfilled by the power of God himself (30:6). In thefuture a new king will arise from the nation (17:14–20) as wellas a prophet like Moses (18:15–22). Deuteronomy thusunderscores the extent of God’s own devotion to his patriarchalpromises despite the sinful nature of his people.
Formuch of the middle and end of the twentieth century, Deuteronomy hasreceived a significant amount of attention for its apparentresemblance in structure and content to ancient Hittite and Assyriantreaties. Scholars debate the extent of similarity, but it ispossible that Deuteronomy reflects a suzerain-vassal treaty formbetween Israel and God much like the common format between nations inthe ancient Near East. Although comparative investigation of thistype can be profitable for interpretation, it is prudent to beconservative when outlining direct parallels, since Deuteronomy isnot a legal document but rather a dramatic narrative of God’sredemptive interaction with the world.
Nonconsensual sexual intercourse imposed on a person by forceor trickery. The rape of a betrothed woman was considered a capitaloffense under OT law (Deut. 22:25–27), and a woman who had beenthe victim of this crime was not dishonored by it. A man who raped anunattached woman was required to pay her bride-price and marry her inorder to preserve her honor. Such a man was not permitted to laterdivorce his wife.
TheOT contains a number of stories describing rape and its consequences.In two instances, women compel men to sleep with them by trickery anddeception. In order to preserve their family line, Lot’sdaughters persuaded their father to have sex with them by making himdrunk (Gen. 19:30–35). For a similar reason, Tamar tricked herfather-in-law, Judah, into thinking that she was a prostitute so thathe would fulfill his family duty to give her a son.
Morecommonly, men perpetrated sexual violence against women to satisfytheir own lust. Sometimes this was lust for an individual woman, asin the cases of Shechem (Gen. 34) and Amnon (2Sam. 13:1–22).In other instances, it is clear that any woman would satisfy theviolent sexual urges of the men involved (Judg. 19; similarly, Gen.19:4–5). In many of these cases, the crimes committed haveserious and long-lasting consequences beyond their immediatecirc*mstances. The rape of the women of Jerusalem was one of thehorrors associated with the fall of the city (Lam. 5:11; Zech. 14:2).
Architecture is the technology and the art of design andconstruction. The technology of architecture includes anunderstanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art ofarchitecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. Thecreative imagination of the architect is constantly considering howto artfully manage form and function in the design and constructionprocess.
Architectureand the Bible
Theterm “architecture” does not occur in most Englishtranslations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of andreference to the architectural activity of God’s people. Inaddition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significantarchitectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so themajor empires of the biblical period often influenced the design andconstruction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in thebiblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to betterunderstand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means ofarchitectural investigation, the history and the heritage of pastcivilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of thebiblical text is enhanced.
Whenwe investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology andart of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecturedraws our attention to the background of the biblical text. Incertain biblical texts we learn about the design and the constructionthat took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during majorbiblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periodsoccurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenthto Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth toeleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge aboutcapital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. Welearn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanitecities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture ofPalestine enables us to better understand the form and function ofthese infrastructures.
Second,architecture draws our attention to the theological implications ofthe form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping withthe scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what Goddesigned for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of thepast and the future included more than just the functionalrequirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter ofthe biblical text must consider how the design of these structureselicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are alsowindows on the social, political, and economic aspects of theIsraelite nation.
OldTestament
Citiesand fortifications.The biblical record makes reference to architectural structures,materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequentlythroughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context forarchitectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not describedin extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who namedhis work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of citiesmentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut.17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important placefor city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was alsosinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed inthe city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executionsfor covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut.17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from thepostexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Withinthe city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel usedthoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in orderto build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to theheavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place ofrefuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).
Citieswere protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided spacefor housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts thefamiliar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destructionof its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of thecity architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needsof the community.
Thebiblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight intoits architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilicperiod, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the buildingmaterials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature ofthe city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments,“Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compactedtogether” (Ps. 122:3).
Beyondthese textual details we learn through the writings of the prophetsthat cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenantviolation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nationof Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophetsalso anticipated the return of the people along with the restorationof the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).
Thetemple and sacred structures.Theother architectural features referenced by the writers of Scriptureinclude altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple.The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furnitureitems described in detail and expertly crafted. The constructionprojects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon,like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekielgives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a futuretemple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).
Thetemple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing.The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three storieshigh. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to coverall the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the constructiondetails for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architecturalstyle. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by thestyles of the major periods.
Whatare the theological implications related to the form and function ofthe sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that Godis the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’ssignature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonictemple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexitiesof the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beautyand intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which Goddesigned, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).
God’sskill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also inthe revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel tothe nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifestedin the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35;2 Chron. 2:14).
Thestructures designed by God for construction were primarily for him.This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periodsincluded long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling.References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not aboutdesign and construction but about function. The domestic home must befree of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to thestandards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homesis given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings7:1–12).
Thetabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34;2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design andfunction of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God andreminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures oftemple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be theresting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord(2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler(2 Chron. 6:34).
Thehistory of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacredstructures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. Godoccupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places aslong as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam.4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings whodeparted from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreignoverlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of thestructure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacredstructures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of thesacred structures anticipates a future time when their originalfunction will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’spresence forever.
NewTestament
TheNT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder”of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple ofGod. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders arebuilding upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costlystones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19;2 Cor. 6:16).
Interms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church.During the time of Christ the significant architectural structureswere the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builderof the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of theJerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure duringthe life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized overform in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer,Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30;Acts 13:15; 14:1).
Thefocus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of itsarchitectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in thecontext of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC toAD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible forestablishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. Theprimary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, whichresulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued tobe laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was beingintroduced. The homes in these cities often were built withcourtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of theHellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing,along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.
Thebook of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about thenew city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) andwhich will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator andredeemer.
The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’schosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel alongwith Rebekah and Rachel. When first introduced, her name is given as“Sarai,” but God changes it to “Sarah” (atthe same time Abram’s name is changed to “Abraham”[Gen. 17:15–16]). Both names mean “princess.” Thesignificance of the change may be subtle, since “Sarai”is an East Semitic version of West Semitic “Sarah,”indicating her transition from Mesopotamia to the promised land.
Accordingto Gen. 11:29–30, Sarai was married to Abram before theyentered the promised land. The passage also announces that she wasbarren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram isthat he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is aconsiderable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative(esp. Gen. 12–26).
Inbrief, Sarai’s inability to conceive is an obstacle to thefulfillment of the promise and is a threat to Abram’s faith.Thus, when a famine forces them to go to Egypt to survive, he tellshis wife to lie about her status by saying that she is his sister.Although it is true that she is his half sister, the statement is alie because he hides the most relevant part of his relationship withher and puts the matriarch in danger (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:12).Abraham’s faith (the narrative does not reveal Sarah’sthinking except perhaps in Gen. 18:10–15, when she laughs atthe thought of giving birth in her old age) in God’s ability tofulfill the promise fluctuates, and he certainly has not come to aconsistent position of trust even just before the birth of Isaac(Gen. 20). As a matter of fact, acting on fear and trying to producean heir, Abraham takes a concubine, Hagar, who gives birth toIshmael. Sarah’s relationship with Hagar is troubled (Gen. 16),and Sarah treats her harshly and eventually has Hagar and Ishmaelexpelled from their camp (21:8–21).
Eventually,in advanced old age, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, the child of thepromise (Gen. 21:1–7). Sarah is not mentioned in the story ofthe “binding of Isaac,” the focus again being onAbraham’s faith.
Sarahpredeceases Abraham, and he buys a field from Ephron the Hittite inorder to bury her (Gen. 23), the first part of the promised landowned by the people of promise. This location near Hebron became theburial spot of Abraham and other patriarchs.
LaterOT literature often looks back on Abraham as patriarch, but only Isa.51:2 explicitly mentions Sarah in the role of cofounder of the peopleof God. She is mentioned also in the NT, along with Abraham, as theone through whom God brings the promise of a son to fulfillment (Rom.4:19; 9:9; Heb. 11:11). In 1Pet. 3:6 Sarah is put forward as amodel of wifely submission because she obeys Abraham and refers tohim as her lord (likely a reference to the Greek version of Gen.18:12).
The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’schosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel alongwith Rebekah and Rachel. When first introduced, her name is given as“Sarai,” but God changes it to “Sarah” (atthe same time Abram’s name is changed to “Abraham”[Gen. 17:15–16]). Both names mean “princess.” Thesignificance of the change may be subtle, since “Sarai”is an East Semitic version of West Semitic “Sarah,”indicating her transition from Mesopotamia to the promised land.
Accordingto Gen. 11:29–30, Sarai was married to Abram before theyentered the promised land. The passage also announces that she wasbarren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram isthat he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is aconsiderable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative(esp. Gen. 12–26).
Inbrief, Sarai’s inability to conceive is an obstacle to thefulfillment of the promise and is a threat to Abram’s faith.Thus, when a famine forces them to go to Egypt to survive, he tellshis wife to lie about her status by saying that she is his sister.Although it is true that she is his half sister, the statement is alie because he hides the most relevant part of his relationship withher and puts the matriarch in danger (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:12).Abraham’s faith (the narrative does not reveal Sarah’sthinking except perhaps in Gen. 18:10–15, when she laughs atthe thought of giving birth in her old age) in God’s ability tofulfill the promise fluctuates, and he certainly has not come to aconsistent position of trust even just before the birth of Isaac(Gen. 20). As a matter of fact, acting on fear and trying to producean heir, Abraham takes a concubine, Hagar, who gives birth toIshmael. Sarah’s relationship with Hagar is troubled (Gen. 16),and Sarah treats her harshly and eventually has Hagar and Ishmaelexpelled from their camp (21:8–21).
Eventually,in advanced old age, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, the child of thepromise (Gen. 21:1–7). Sarah is not mentioned in the story ofthe “binding of Isaac,” the focus again being onAbraham’s faith.
Sarahpredeceases Abraham, and he buys a field from Ephron the Hittite inorder to bury her (Gen. 23), the first part of the promised landowned by the people of promise. This location near Hebron became theburial spot of Abraham and other patriarchs.
LaterOT literature often looks back on Abraham as patriarch, but only Isa.51:2 explicitly mentions Sarah in the role of cofounder of the peopleof God. She is mentioned also in the NT, along with Abraham, as theone through whom God brings the promise of a son to fulfillment (Rom.4:19; 9:9; Heb. 11:11). In 1Pet. 3:6 Sarah is put forward as amodel of wifely submission because she obeys Abraham and refers tohim as her lord (likely a reference to the Greek version of Gen.18:12).
The term “Semite” does not appear in the biblicaltext, but reflects the name used for the descendants of Noah’sson Shem, “Shemites,” later modified to “Semites”(see Gen. 10:21–31). The term is used now to refer to thosepeoples speaking one of the Semitic languages, today mainly the Jewsand the Arabs, but in ancient times the Akkadians, the Amorites, theBabylonians, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites as well. Scholarsagree that the inclusion of peoples in Gen. 10 under the rubric“Semites” is not justified by the linguistic criterion.The common features of the languages of Assyrians, Arameans, andHebrews, which mark them as members of one family, set them apartfrom the “Semitic” Lydians (Lud) and Elamites, whoselanguages are totally unrelated. The grounds for the inclusion ofBabylonians, Phoenicians, and Canaanites—these are consideredHamitic (Gen. 10:10, 15–19)—among the Semites are chieflylinguistic, although political and cultural affinities are alsoconsidered.
Thecommon features of the Semitic languages include the Proto-Semiticphonetic inventory from which all Semitic languages developed theirphonetic systems: a triliteral root, the absence of a neuter noun,aspectual verbal system, encl*tic use of pronouns, the verb-firstsyntax (the verb-first order of Akkadian is undoubtedly the result ofSumerian influence), and so on. Based on the form of the perfectiveverb, the Semitic languages are divided into East Semitic (Akkadianand Eblaite) and West Semitic, which includes the Northwest Semiticsubfamily, which in turn includes Hebrew and other Canaanitelanguages.
Those who imitated the wickedness of Sodom, especially maleswho had sexual intercourse with other males (1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim.1:10 NRSV [NIV: “those practicing hom*osexuality”]).Initially, the term “sodomite” referred to a citizen ofthe town of Sodom. Sodom was, along with Gomorrah, one of the citiesnear the Dead Sea destroyed by God for its wickedness (Gen. 19:24).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
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).
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).
Today, vengeance normally is understood as retaliation for asuffered wrong, an action arising from vindictiveness and antipathytoward its object. Such an understanding runs counter to the biblicalconcept of vengeance. Indeed, the negative individual vengefulnessassociated with the term is either unequivocally forbidden or shownto be wrongheaded (Exod. 23:4–5; Lev. 19:18; Ezek. 25:12–16;Jer. 20:10–11; 1Pet. 3:9). Thus, the term is betterunderstood by considering the Hebrew term naqam(or its synonyms baqash and gemul [Josh. 22:23; 1Sam. 20:16;2Sam. 4:11; Ps. 94:2; Isa. 59:18; Obad. 15]) and the Greek termekdikēsis.A close study of the biblical terms suggests that vengeance has to dowith the administration of justice: the rendition of appropriatesanctions against a violator of established norms, and the provisionof justice or vindication to the victimized or oppressed. Onerecurrent motif in the incidences of God’s vengeance is itsfunction in stopping or recompensing injustice (Isa. 59:14–18).The prerogative of such a solemn task rests with someone withlegitimate authority. Such authority is ultimately God’s (Deut.32:35, 39; cf. Ps. 94:1–3; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:19). Indeed,the subject of four out of every five occurrences of “vengeance”in the Bible is God.
Inthat capacity, God combines, almost indistinguishably, the roles of asovereign, supreme judge, and warrior in his execution of vengeanceon the errant (Exod. 15:1–7; Ps. 89:6–18; Isa. 51:4–5;52:10; Jer. 20:12). He sometimes delegates this function to angels(Gen. 18–19; Exod. 12:23; 2Kings 19:35; Acts 12:23);nations, or national armies (Deut. 28:45–50; Isa. 10:5; Jer.50:9–15); Israel (Deut. 9:1–5; 7:1; 20:16–17; Josh.6:17–25; 8:24); kings, political leaders, and judicial officers(Deut. 25:1; Jer. 27:6; Rom. 13:1–4; 1Pet. 2:13–14);and nonintelligent beings or elements of nature (Exod. 23:28–30;Amos 4:6–11).
God’svengeance has its moorings in his holiness (Jer. 50:28–29; cf.Deut. 32:4). The violation of his holiness arouses his justice, whichdemands just retribution for the offense (2Sam. 12:1–12;Jer. 50:6–7; Ezek. 31:3–11). Put differently, God’srighteousness is the obverse of his vengeance. One’s experienceof either is contingent upon one’s relationship with God. Inother words, his vengeance flows from his justice (Ps. 89:31–32;Nah. 1:3). God’s justice is counterbalanced by his love (cf.James 2:13). For that reason, his vengeance on his covenant people isoften more corrective than punitive and anticipates their repentance,redemption, and restoration (Isa. 1:24–26; Jer. 3:1–17;46:28). Ultimately, he forgives his people, whom he disciplines (Pss.89:19–33; 99:8; Zeph. 3:7; Rom. 5:6–11).
Therefore,there always is a close link between God’s vengeance on thewicked and the salvation of his people (Isa. 34:8; 49:26; 61:1–3;Jer. 51:36). This is why the nations that he uses to punish Israelend up being punished themselves because of their hubris andoverreaching attempts to annihilate his covenant people (Isa.47:1–11; Jer. 46:10; 50–51), their failure to recognizethe God who has prospered them, and their opposition to him (Deut.32:26; Mic. 5:14). Thus, God’s people come to expect or evencall for God’s vengeance on their enemies (Ps. 94:1–7;Jer. 11:20; 15:15; Lam. 3:60–66; Hab. 1:2–4). Suchexpectation is usually futuristic and parallels Israelite hope forthe impending “day of the Lord” (Isa. 13:9–11; Jer.46:10; Luke 21:20–24; 2Thess. 1:6–8). Thus, thecries of God’s people for his vengeance on their enemiesrepresent the abandonment of personal revenge in favor of God’sacts of justice and vindication—petitions for the rule of God’slaw over mere human justice (Pss. 58:11; 79:10; Rev. 6:10).
Showing
1
to
50
of228
results
1. Sodom and Gomorrah, Man and Wife
Illustration
Citations
The story has been told, mostly as a joke, about several famous preachers, but years ago it actually happened to Joseph Parker, minister of the City Temple in London. An older lady waited on Parker in his vestry after a service to thank him for the help she received from his sermons. "You do throw such wonderful light on the Bible, doctor," she said. "Do you know that until this morning, I had always thought that Sodom and Gomorrah were man and wife?"
2. Leave and Don't Look Back
Illustration
Although Lot is referred to by Peter as "righteous Lot," he chose to live among the wicked in Sodom because he loved money and prominence. He was a double-minded man who wanted to serve God but who also wanted to enjoy the pleasures of this world. I believe this is evident from the fact that Lot chose to live in the plain bordering the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 13:1-13). Once there, he moved into the city itself and became a part of its culture (19:1). It's true that he didn't give up his belief in the high moral standards he had learned from his uncle Abraham, and he didn't approve of the wicked things he saw and heard. But as an official at the city gate, he apparently had little impact on the wicked society of which he was a part.
Lot's double-mindedness brought him much inner torment and rendered him spiritually powerless. He couldn't even convince his sons-in-law (and their wives) to leave Sodom before God's judgment fell. Only he, his wife, and the two daughters still living at home escaped. And his wife died instantly when she looked back, disobeying God's command. In the end, Lot lost the very things he wanted possessions and position.
3. Lord, I Want to See - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Helen Keller, so brave and inspiring to us in her deafness and blindness, once wrote a magazine article entitled: "Three days to see." In that article she outlined what things she would like to see if she were granted just three days of sight. It was a powerful, thought provoking article. On the first day she said she wanted to see friends. Day two she would spend seeing nature. The third day she would spend in her home city of New York watching the busy city and the work day of the present. She concluded it with these words: "I who am blind can give one hint to those who see: Use your eyes as if tomorrow you were stricken blind.'
As bad as blindness is in the 20th century, however, it was so much worse in Jesus' day. Today a blind person at least has the hope of living a useful life with proper training. Some of the most skilled and creative people in our society are blind. But in first century Palestine blindness meant that you would be subjected to abject poverty. You would be reduced to begging for a living. You lived at the mercy and the generosity of others. Unless your particular kind of blindness was self-correcting, there was no hope whatsoever for a cure. The skills that were necessary were still centuries beyond the medical knowledge of the day.
Little wonder then that one of the signs of the coming of the Messiah was that the blind should receive their sight. When Jesus he announced his messiahship, he said: "The spirit of the Lord is upon me. He has sent me to recover sight to the blind." The story of the healing of blind Bartimaeus would suggest to us that there are three kinds of blindness.
1. The first kind of blindness is the blindness of Bartimaeus.
2. The second kind of blindness is the blindness of the disciples.
3. The third kind of blindness is the blindness of you and me.
4. Ethics Rooted In...?
Illustration
Michael P. Green
"But one has to have an ethical base for a society. Where the prime force is impulse, there is the death of ethics. America used to have ethical laws based in Jerusalem. Now they are based in Sodom and Gomorrah, and civilizations rooted in Sodom and Gomorrah are destined to collapse” (The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Time, Nov. 21, 1977).
So it is also with individual lives.
5. Hospitality versus Entertaining
Illustration
Karen Mains
Karen Mains distinguishes between Hospitality and Entertaining: Entertaining says, "I want to impress you with my home, my clever decorating, my cooking." Hospitality, seeking to minister, says, "This home is a gift from my Master. I use it as he desires."Hospitality aims to serve.
Entertaining puts things before people. "As soon as I get the house finished, the living room decorated, my house cleaning done--then I will start inviting people." Hospitality puts people first. "No furniture--we'll eat on the floor! The decorating may never get done--you come anyway. The house is a mess--but you are friends--come home with us."
Entertaining subtly declares, "This home is mine, an expression of my personality. Look, please, and admire." Hospitality whispers, "What is mine is yours."
6. Hospitality vs. Entertaining
Illustration
Karen Mains
The following differentiation between “hospitality” and “entertaining” was made by Karen Mains in Open Heart, Open Home:
Entertaining says, “I want to impress you with my home, my clever decorating, my cooking.” Hospitality, seeking to minister, says, “This home is a gift from my Master. I use it as He desires.” Hospitality aims to serve.
Entertaining puts things before people. “As soon as I get the house finished, the living room decorated, my housecleaning done—then I will start inviting people. Hospitality puts people first. “No furniture—we’ll eat on the floor!” “The decorating may never get done—you come anyway.” “The house is a mess—but you are friends—come home with us.”
Entertaining subtly declares, “This home is mine, an expression of my personality. Look, please, and admire.” Hospitality whispers, “What is mine is yours.”
7. Eternal Punishment
Illustration
James Packer
We are told in the parable of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25:31-46) that those whom the judge rejects go away into Kolasis (punishment) aionios (a final state). The phrase is balanced by the reference to zoe aionios (eternal life) which is also a fixed and final state. Even if this word aionios is believed to mean only "belonging to the coming aion", and not to imply endlessness in the sense of perpetual continuity, the thought of endlessness is certainly bound up in the phrase "eternal life," and can hardly therefore be excluded from the corresponding and balancing phrase "eternal punishment." The idea that in this text aionios as applied to kolasis must imply everlastingness seems to be unbreakable.
The New testament always conceives of this eternal punishment as consisting of an agonizing knowledge of one's own ill desert, of God's displeasure, of the good that one has lost, and of the irrevocable fixed state in which one now finds oneself. The doctrine of eternal punishment was taught in the synagogue even before our Lord took it up and enforced it in the Gospels. All the language that strikes terror into our hearts weeping and gnashing of teeth, outer darkness, the worm, the fire, gehenna, the great gulf fixed is all directly taken from our Lord's teaching. It is from Jesus Christ that we learn the doctrine of eternal punishment.
Study the following Bible passages and any other relevant ones on this topic, and reach your own conclusions, prayerfully: Luke 16:26; John 3:18-19, 36; 5:29; 12:32; Acts 3:21,23; Rom. 1:16, 5:18-21; 1 Cor. 15:25-28; 2 Cor. 5:10, 19; 6:2; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:25; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 9:27; 1 Pet. 3:19; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 John 1:5; 2:2; 4:8.
8. Jesus Was Baptized By Moses
Illustration
Michael P. Green
There is a story about a New England teacher who quizzed a group of college-bound high-school juniors and seniors on the Bible. The quiz preceded a “Bible as Literature” class he planned to teach at Newton High School in Massachusetts, generally considered one of the better public schools in the nation. Among the most unusual answers from his students were: “Sodom and Gomorrah were lovers” and “Jezebel was Ahab’s donkey.”
Other students thought that the four horsem*n appeared “on the Acropolis,” that the New Testament Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, “Luther,” and John, that Eve was created “from an apple,” and that Jesus was “baptized by Moses.” The answer that took the misinformation prize was given by a fellow who was academically in the top 5 percent of the graduating class. The question: “What was Golgotha?” The answer: “Golgotha was the name of the giant who slew the apostle David.”
9. Second Fiddle
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
An admirer once asked Leonard Bernstein, celebrated orchestra conductor, what was the hardest instrument to play. He replied without hesitation: "Second fiddle. I can always get plenty of first violinists, but to find one who plays second violin with as much enthusiasm or second French horn or second flute, now that's a problem. And yet if no one plays second, we have no harmony."
10. Judgment and Grace
Illustration
At first it is hard to comprehend that Dr. Karl Menninger wrote both The Crime of Punishment and Whatever Became of Sin? The two books appear to be diametrically opposed. The one emphasizes that we must take Sin seriously while the other denounces the "philosophy of punishment" as obsolete, vengeful and itself criminal. But the two books are not contradictory. An emphasis on a gracious attitude of forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation does not mean that we naively ignore sin and evil. Menninger writes that in place of the vengeful philosophy of punishment we should "seek a comprehensive, constructive social attitude - therapeutic in some instances, restraining in some instances, but preventative in its total social impact." He is calling for a paradoxical combination of judgment and grace.
11. Human Government
Illustration
Charles Colson
Though it is hard to pen scripture down on exactly what role government has in the Christian'slife, the following is offered as a starting point: The general function of human government, as instituted by God, may be said to be threefold: to protect, punish, and promote.
- The Function of Protection: The moment Adam sinned it was obvious that civilizations would need some form of restraint and rule to protect citizens from themselves. An example of this function is seen in Acts 21:27-37 where Roman soldiers step in and save Paul from being murdered by his own enraged countrymen in Jerusalem.
- The Function of Punishment: Both Paul and Peter bring this out. Paul writes that duly appointed human officials are to be regarded as God's servants to "bear the sword," that is, to impose punishment upon criminals (vv. 3,4). Peter tells us that governors are "sent by him for the punishment of evildoers" (1 Pet 2:13, 14).
- The Function of Promotion: Human government is to promote the general welfare of the community where its laws are in effect. Paul commands us to pray for human leaders "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Tim 2:1,2). New King James Version Notes, Thomas Nelson, p. 1152
Converesly, we have a responsibility tohuman government.It is impossible for a believer to be a good Christian and a bad citizen at the same time. As children of God our responsibility to human government is threefold:
- We are to recognize and accept that the powers that be are ordained by God. "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." (Rom 13:1) This truth applies even to atheistic human governments unless, of course, the law is anti- scriptural. In that situation the believer must obey God rather than man (Acts 4:18-20). In fact, when Paul wrote those words in Romans 13:1, the evil emperor Nero was on the throne. See also Titus 3:1.
- We are to pay our taxes to human government (Matt 17:24-7; 22:21, Rom 13:7).
- We are to pray for the leaders in human government. "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior" (1 Tim 2:1-3). New King James Version Notes, Thomas Nelson, p. 1270
We are to take responsibility for the right ordering of civil society without falling prey to the idea that it is within our power to build the Kingdom of God on earth.
12. The Ministry of Hospitality
Illustration
J. Scott Miller
Bob Edmunds, former pastor at a church in Elmira, New York, tells a story of what it feels like to be denied hospitality. He and his family were vacationing one summer and decided to worship at a prominent church in the Washington D. C. area. Apparently this church had quite a reputation for the quality of their preaching and corporate worship. The reputation held up, according to Bob and Susan's standards. The sermon was riveting and the music, inspiring. That much did not disappoint them. But the lack of hospitality did.
From the moment they arrived at that church to the time they left, not one person spoke to them - except for the pastor who made a feeble attempt on their way out the door. No one directed them to the nursery. They had to find it themselves. No one invited them to the fellowship hall for coffee and refreshments afterwards. They had to find it themselves. In fact Bob deliberately stood underneath the huge chandelier in the center of that spacious hall for at least five minutes - gazing up at it and looking as conspicuous as possible. But no one came up to him or introduced themselves to him.
"We felt as though we were invisible," Bob says. "No one noticed that we were even there. I don't care how good the preaching and music were. Nothing could have made up for their lack of hospitality. That church was as cold and lifeless as a corpse."
13. Angels on Assignment
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
This happened in 1956 during the Mau Mau uprisings in East Africa. The story is told by veteran missionary Morris Plotts.
A band of roving Mau Maus came to the village of Lauri, surrounded it, and killed every inhabitant, including women and children—three hundred people in all. Not more than three miles away was the Rift Valley Academy, a private boarding school where children were being educated while their missionary parents worked elsewhere. Immediately upon leaving the carnage at Lauri the Mau Maus came with spears, clubs, torches, and bows and arrows to the school, bent on destruction.
You can imagine the fear of those children at the school. Word had already reached them about the destruction of Lauri. There was no place to flee. The only resource was prayer.
Out in the night, lighted torches were seen coming toward the school. Soon there was a complete ring of these terrorists about the school, cutting off all avenues of escape. Shouting and curses could be heard coming from the Mau Maus. Then they began to advance on the school, tightening the circle, shouting louder, coming closer. Suddenly, when they were close enough to throw a spear, they stopped. They began to retreat, and soon they were running into the jungle. A call had gone out to the authorities, and an army had been sent in the direction of the school to rescue the inhabitants. But by the time the army arrived, the would-be assassins had dispersed. The army spread out in search of them and captured the entire band of raiding Mau Maus.
Later, before the judge at their trial, the Mau Mau leader was called to the witness stand. The judge asked him, "On this night did you kill the inhabitants of Lauri?"
The leader replied, "Yes."
"Was it your intent to do the same at the Rift Valley Academy?"
"Yes".
"Well then," asked the judge, "why did you not complete the mission? Why didn't you attack the school?"
The leader, who had never read the Bible and never heard the gospel, replied, "We were on our way to attack and destroy all the people at the school. But as we came closer, all of a sudden, between us and the school, there were many huge men, dressed in white with flaming swords. We became afraid and we ran to hide!"
14. God's Work of Art
Illustration
Mickey Anders
Well-intentioned people often take on the role of God's defense attorney. Sometimes when bad things happen to us they "defend" God by telling us that the ways of God are mysterious, and we do not understand them. That which seems to be a bad thing - a child who is born blind - is really a beautiful thing. We should give thanks for the blindness or tragedy. It is all God's Will.
Perhaps our friends will use the famous illustration of Thorton Wilder from his book The Eighth Day, where he compares life to a beautiful tapestry: "Looked at from the right side, it is an intricately woven work of art, drawing together threads of different lengths and colors to make up an inspiring picture. But turn the tapestry over, and you will see a hodgepodge of many threads, some short and some long, some smooth and some cut and knotted, going off in different directions. Wilder offers this as his explanation of why good people have to suffer in this life. God has a pattern into which all of our lives fit. His pattern requires that some lives be twisted, knotted, or cut short, while others extend to impressive lengths, not because one thread is more deserving than another, but simply because the pattern requires it. Looked at from underneath, from our vantage point in life, God's pattern of reward and punishment seems arbitrary and without design, like the underside of a tapestry. But looked at from outside this life, from God's vantage point, every twist and knot is seen to have its place in a great design that adds up to a work of art."
Telling someone that the tragedy that has just befallen them is "God's will" is the worst possible thing you could say to them.
15. Two Kinds of Life and Death
Illustration
John R. Brokhoff
Two Kinds of Life:The Greeks had two words for "life" and both appear in the New Testament. One is bios from which we get "biology." It refers to biological and physical life. It is not true life but mere existence. This is life in terms of quantity and extension. Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible, had this kind of life. He lived 969 years, but there is no record of any contribution he made to the welfare of society.
The other Greek word is zoe. It is used to denote true life, the quality of life. It is spiritual life with God as the source of life. While bios is temporal, zoe is eternal. The one deals with the body and the other with the soul. But this eternal life also has quantity, for it extends through eternity. To distinguish this type of life from the former, the New Testament uses "eternal life."
Two Kinds of Death: As there are two kinds of life, there are two kinds of death. The bios type of life ends in physical death. The body declines, deteriorates, and dies. This is in accord with the natural order, for all living things die, including hom*o sapiens. If a human were only a physical body, the person would come to an end. In this case, death has the last word and is the ultimate victor over life.
There is another kind of death. The Bible speaks of death in terms of separation from God. "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). Sin is the dreadful agent that separates us from God. To be apart from God, from life, love, joy, and peace, is to be dead. Does this mean that the soul is exterminated or extinguished? If so, there would be a merciful nothingness. However, the Bible teaches that a soul apart from God, living in death, is in hell, a state of misery. Paul describes the condition in hell: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thessalonians 1:9). As there is eternal life, there is also everlasting death. It is to save us from this fate that God gave his Son to die for us and to reinstate us with God in whom we have eternal life. The scriptures repeatedly assure us that God does not want a single soul to perish or to be lost or to go to hell. In Christ, God the Father gave his very self to prevent people from going to everlasting death.
16. Forgiving One's Enemies
Illustration
Ralph W. Sockman
In the early days of the Southern Confederacy, General Robert E. Lee was severely criticized by General Whiting. It might have been expected that Lee would wait for a time when he could get even with Whiting. A day came when president Jefferson Davis asked General Lee to come for consultation. The President wanted to know what Lee thought of General Whiting. Without hesitation Lee commended Whiting in high terms and called him one of the ablest men in the confederate army. An officer present motioned Lee aside to suggest that he must not know what unkind things whiting had been saying about him. Lee answered: "I understood that the president desired to know my opinion of Whiting, not Whiting's opinion of me."
17. Entertaining Angels Unaware
Illustration
Mark Trotter
The Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament reminds us of that incident, and counsels Christians to make hospitality a Christian virtue. "For you may be entertaining angels unaware." But more than that, you may be doing it to Christ, who said, "If you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me."
Tom Long teaches at the seminary at Princeton. But for a while he lived in Atlanta, and attended a Presbyterian Church in downtown Atlanta. Like most downtown churches, it has to cope with the problem of the homeless. So they opened up their gymnasium in the winter as a shelter. It was the practice of that church, as it is in this church when we open our buildings as a shelter in the winter months, to have people from the church serve as hosts and hostesses.
Long volunteered to be a host one night. The night came and since no one else volunteered, he invited a friend to come and join him. His friend was not a member of that church. In fact, he wasn't a member of any church. But periodically, in their conversations about religious matters, this friend would say, "Tom, I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me...," and then he would express his opinion.
On this night as they were hosting the shelter, they met the men as they arrived, saw that they had something to eat, hung out with them for a while. Then as the men began to prepare to retire, Tom's friend said, "Tom, you get some sleep. I will stay with them the first watch, then I'll wake you up, and you can come and stay with them for the rest of the night."
So the friend stayed up and mingled with the guests, listened to them, asked questions about who they were, what had happened to them in their lives that they were now homeless. At 2:00 a.m. he went in and woke up Tom. He said, "Wake up! Wake up! I want you to come and see this. Granted I am no theologian, but I think that Jesus is down there."
It was promised. "Those who show hospitality to the least of these," he said, "have done it to me."
18. Making Your Mark
Illustration
King Duncan
A legend during the classic time of Greece tells of a terrible thing happened in one of the temples. One night the statue of Zeus was mysteriously smashed and desecrated. A tremendous uproar arose among the inhabitants. They feared the vengeance of the gods. The town crier walked the city streets commanding the criminal to appear without delay before the Elders to receive his just punishment.
The perpetrator naturally had no desire to give himself up. In fact, a week later another statue of a god was destroyed. Now the people suspected that a madman was loose. Guards were posted. At last their vigilance was rewarded; the culprit was caught. He was asked, "Do you know what fate awaits you?"
"Yes," he answered, almost cheerfully. "Death."
"Aren't you afraid to die?"
"Yes, I am." he answered.
"Then why did you commit a crime which you knew was punishable by death?" they asked.
The man swallowed hard and then answered, "I am a nobody. All my life I've been a nobody. I've never done anything to distinguish myself and I knew I never would. I wanted to do something to make people notice me...and remember me." The need to be recognized, to be appreciated, to have people know your name can carry a tragic price tag.
Note:We could not find any ancient renditions of this event so we have marked this legend.
19. The Right Education
Illustration
Thomas Sowell
All across this country, the undermining and destruction of the values that children were taught at home is going on in public schools. One of the first things a family tries to teach its children is the difference between right and wrong. One of the first things our schools try to destroy is that distinction. The up-to-date way to carry on the destruction of traditional values is to claim to be solving some social problem like drugs, STDsor teen-age pregnancy. Only those few people who have the time to research what is actually being done in "drug education," "sex education" or "death education" courses know what an utter fraud these labels are.
For those are courses about how right and wrong are outmoded notions, about how your parents' ideas are no guide for you, and about how each person must start from scratch to develop his or her own way of behaving.
20. Priceless Scribbles
Illustration
King Duncan
A story appeared in theChristian Readercalled "Priceless Scribbles." It's about a father who touched his child's life in an unexpected way. A young boy watched as his father walked into the living room. The boy noticed that his younger brother, John, began to cower slightly as his father entered. The older boy sensed that John had done something wrong. Then he saw from a distance what his brother had done. The younger boy had opened his father's brand new hymnal and scribbled all over the first page with a pen.
Staring at their father fearfully, both brothers waited for John's punishment. Their father picked up his prized hymnal, looked at it carefully and then sat down, without saying a word. Books were precious to him; he was a minister with several academic degrees. For him, books were knowledge. What he did next was remarkable, says the author of this story. Instead of punishing his brother, instead of scolding, or yelling, his father took the pen from the little boy's hand, and then wrote in the book himself, alongside the scribbles that John had made. Here is what that father wrote: "John's work, 1959, age 2." He continued to write: "How many times have I looked into your beautiful face and into your warm, alert eyes looking up at me and thanked God for the one who has now scribbled in my new hymnal. You have made the book sacred, as have your brother and sister to so much of my life."
"Wow," thought the older brother, "This is punishment?" The author of the story, now an adult, goes on to say how that hymnal became a treasured family possession, how it was tangible proof that their parents loved them, how it taught the lesson that what really matters is people, not objects; patience, not judgment; love, not anger.
21. Historic: The Declaration of Independence
Illustration
Staff
The unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in Congress, July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
- For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
- For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circ*mstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.
- We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
- We have reminded them of the circ*mstances of our emigration and settlement here.
- We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
- New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
- Massachusetts: John Hanco*ck, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
- Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
- Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
- New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
- New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
- Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
- Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
- Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
- Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
- North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
- South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
- Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Background
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), approved the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to set forth the principles upon which the Congress had acted two days earlier when it voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee's motion to declare the freedom and independence of the 13 American colonies from England. The Declaration was designed to influence public opinion and gain support both among the new states and abroad especially in France, from which the new "United States" sought military assistance.
Although Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert R. Livingston comprised the committee charged with drafting the Declaration, the task fell to Jefferson, regarded as the strongest and most eloquent writer. The document is mainly his work, although the committee and Congress as a whole made a total of 86 changes to Jefferson's draft.
As a scholar well-versed in the ideas and ideals of the French and English Enlightenments, Jefferson found his greatest inspiration in the language and arguments of English philosopher John Locke, who had justified England's "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 on the basis of man's "natural rights." Locke's theory held that government was a contract between the governed and those governing, who derived their power solely from the consent of the governed and whose purpose it was to protect every man's inherent right to property, life and liberty. Jefferson's theory of "natural law" differed in that it substituted the inalienable right of "the pursuit of happiness" for "property," emphasizing that happiness is the product of civic virtue and public duty. The concept of the "pursuit of happiness" originated in the Common Sense School of Scottish philosophy, of which Lord Kames was the best-known proponent.
Jefferson emphasized the contractual justification for independence, arguing that when the tyrannical government of King George III of England repeatedly violated "natural law, " the colonists had not only the right but the duty to revolt.
The assembled Continental Congress deleted a few passages of the draft, and amended others, but outright rejected only two sections: 1) a derogatory reference to the English people; 2) a passionate denunciation of the slave trade. The latter section was left out, as Jefferson reported, to accede to the wishes of South Carolina and Georgia, who wanted to continue the importation of slaves. The rest of the draft was accepted on July 4, and 56 members of Congress began their formal signing of the document on August 2, 1776.
22. Playpen Pleading
Illustration
King Duncan
Ray Steadman gives the following illustration: The grandfather entered the child’s bedroom. A wide grin brightened his kind, warm face. “Davy!” he said, spreading his arms for a hug.
“Grampa!” shrieked the delighted two-year-old from his playpen. “Grampa, hug!”
“Sure, I’ll give you a hug, Davy,” said the grandfather. And with that, the old man reached out to his grandson and scooped him up out of the playpen, snuggling the boy in his strong arms. After a big hug, the grandfather set the boy down outside the playpen, among his toys, and they began to play together.
Minutes later, the boy’s mother walked into the room. “Davy!” she said sternly. “You know I put you in the playpen because you’ve been naughty! You shouldn’t have told Grampa to take you out!”
Davy’s eyes puddled up, and he began to cry. The grandfather instantly felt terrible. He didn’t know that his grandson had been given a time out in the playpen as a punishment. Now he had made a bad situation even worse for his little grandson.
“Grampa, play with me!” the boy said in pitiful voice that broke the old man’s heart.
But the mother was unbending. “Davy, you know you have to go back into the playpen.” She lifted the boy up and put him back in solitary confinement. The boy wailed in despair.
What could the grandfather do? He knew he couldn’t overrule the boy’s mother. But his heart went out to the poor boy. Then the grandfather had an idea.
“Dad!” said the mother. “What do you think you’re doing?”
“The only thing I can do,” said the grandfather as he climbed into the playpen with his grandson. The child was being punished, and rightfully so. The only way the grandfather could show mercy to the boy was by descending to Davy’s situation and taking Davy’s punishment onto himself.
http://www.raystedman.org/mark/mark1.html
23. CENSUS TAKER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Exodus 30:12 - "When you take the census of the people of Israel, then shall each give a ransom for himself to the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them."
Numbers 1:1 - "Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, by families, by fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male, head by head;"
I’m sure we all remember the great census of 1970, which our government claimed would be the most comprehensive ever undertaken in this country, and which included items of information about which we had never before been asked. Certainly, these items of information could be recognized as being very important in determining living standards, educational backgrounds, and many other facts about American citizens which the government needs to know to enable us to live "the good life."
At the lime, we also heard much about the extra time that was being put in by census takers and other employees of the Bureau of Statistics, and, cynics that most of us are, perhaps we said, with a shrug, "Well, that’s tough. So they’re collecting overtime, aren’t they!" But, still, not being averse to doing the same thing ourselves whenever possible, we were tolerant about the whole thing. Certainly, the public response to the census was gratifying. Very few actively objected, and the great majority submitted their questionnaires on time. Would you be surprised, then, to learn that, until recently, there was a strict taboo against census-taking?
Although the taking of a census - not only of people, but also of all the kinds of properties - is an ancient custom, dating back to the third millenium B.C. in Babylonia and Egypt, and, as our texts show, was not unknown in Israel, still this taboo existed.
The prevailing theory among scholars is that this taboo was imposed because the taking of a census (head-counting) is a presumptuous usurpation of God’s rights: only God knows who is to live or to die, and by assigning a military rating to a man (the original purpose of the census), this pre-knowledge of man’s fate can be somewhat assumed. So, we as often find when God is crossed, terrible consequences were thought to follow the taking of such a census. Joab tried very hard to deflect David from this undertaking, but was unsuccessful, and, as a result, the plague broke out.
To avoid this punishment, finally a new system was inaugurated: a half shekel was collected from each person. These were then counted, and thus the number of people was known. Bureaucratic maneuvering is hardly an accomplishment of the twentieth century! The system that we have today takes its name from the Roman system, in which the members of families were enumerated every five years for the purpose of determining their civil status and corresponding liabilities. But even the Romans concluded these census takings with a cleansing ceremony.
We are, of course, familiar with two very important Roman censuses: the first was the one ordered by Quirinus in 6-7 B.C., in Palestine, which aroused a revolt of the people, and, of course, the one ordered by Augustus that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and so ushered in the Christian era.
However, after the downfall of the Roman Empire, census taking also declined. Superstition probably had a great deal to do with this. Undoubtedly the Christian Church remembered the punishment of Israel, and so, aside from two very notable endeavors - Charlemagne’s Breviary and the English Domesday Book which followed the Norman invasion - there was no systematic census taking until the mid-l7th century.
This was done in Quebec, although, as late as 1753, in the British House of Commons, the proposal that a general census be conducted was turned down because of a fear that a numbering of the people would be followed by "some great public misfortune or epidemical distemper." Great Britain did not have its first census until 1801.
No doubt there was a great deal of the unspoken objection to being placed on a list to be declared eligible for military service, or the payment of taxes, but, nevertheless, the primitive fear of the taboo is still buried deep within us, and it sometimes can surface without our tacitly acknowledging it. But - next time the census taker comes around, be cooperative! Our legal and monumental judicial and administrative system could no longer function without list after list after - ad infinitum! And the only curse that we can expect is that of increased taxes!
24. Six Stages of Moral Conduct
Illustration
Staff
Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg, a Harvard psychologist, has pinpointed six plateaus of moral development. Let's venture a guess as to where our society is currently located.
- Stage one: obedience and punishment. Right is what authorities command. The underlying motive is fear of punishment, not respect for authority or values.
- Stage two: back-scratching. When people begin to seek a return for their favors. It's the "I'll-do-for-you-but-only-if- you-reciprocate" mentality. Kohlberg terms it "the morality of the marketplace."
- Stage three: conformity. Good behavior is that which pleases or helps others, and is approved by them. The evaluations and expectations of peers are particularly strong.
- Stage four: law-and-order. What is right is doing one's duty, showing respect for authority and maintaining the given social order. What the law commands transcends all other considerations.
- Stage five: social contract. Right is defined in terms of the general rights of individuals, as agreed upon by the whole society (e.g., U.S. Constitution).
- Stage six: universal principles. Morality is based on decisions of conscience made in accordance with self-chosen principles of "right" principles which are universal and consistent.
25. Accustomed to the Dark
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Sir John Wilson traveled 50,000 miles a year on behalf of the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness. That’s an organization which, last year, brought sight to 141,000 people.
It’s remarkable that Wilson himself is blind.
A few years ago he traveled to the village of Naking in northern Ghana, where almost everyone is blind. Farmers taught him to plant grain by following a straight piece of bamboo. Their wives went to the well by following a piece of rope. Nelson discovered that these villagers were so accustomed to blindness they found it difficult to believe that the rest of the world could see.
Doesn’t something like that happen to all of us? It’s easy to fall into a rut of morality far below even our own standards, easy to lose ourselves in the dark -- and get the notion that no light exists.
26. Does Your Gift Represent You?
Illustration
John Allan Lavender
It happened one time after a pastor had made an appeal in church for a great and worthy cause, that a certain woman, a member of the church, came to him and handed him a check for $50, asking at the same time if her gift was satisfactory. The pastor immediately replied, "If it represents you."
There was a moment of soul-searching thought and she asked to have the check returned to her. She left with it and a day or two later she returned handing the pastor a check for $5,000 and again asked the same question, "Is my gift satisfactory?" The pastor gave the same answer as before, "If it represents you." As before, a truth seemed to be driving deeply. After a few moments of hesitation she took back the check and left.
Later in the week she came again with a check. That time it was for $50,000. As she placed it in the pastor's hand, she said, "After earnest, prayerful thought, I have come to the conclusion that this gift does represent me and I am happy to give it."
27. Child-rearing and Discipline
Illustration
Rebecca Lamar Harmon
The headline to one “Dear Abby” column read, “Mom spares the rod and earns child’s contempt.” The letter read:
Dear Abby,
My problem is my mother. She’s too lenient! After she gets angry and punishes me, she often will apologize. Why should she, when I had the punishment coming?
Mixed-Up in Cleveland
Abby replied,
Dear Mixed-Up:
Your mother (like many others) fears you will love her less because she has punished you. (She’s wrong.) No child has ever resented punishment he knew he had coming. Discipline is “proof” of love, … Children “know” this. I wish more parents did.113
Susanna Wesley, mother of Charles and John Wesley, is perhaps the classic illustration of one who pursued discipline early in a child’s life. She believed the assertive self-will of a child must be broken at a young age by the parent. One of her rules in her “plan of education” was:
“When turned a year old (and some before), they were taught to fear the rod and to cry softly, by which means they escaped abundance of correction which they might otherwise have had.…
In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their will.”
28. A Little Longer Of Earthly Darkness
Illustration
Donald Dotterer
Most of you don'tknow the name of the great Christian hymn writer Ira Sankey, who wrote over 200 hymns. He was an associate of Dwight L. Moody.He lived in Brooklyn, New York during the last years of his life. After years of blindness due to age and ill health,he died in 1908. Just before his death, in his blindness and his frailty, he dictated this farewell message: "I have only a little longer of earthly darkness, and then the sunshine of the Father's throne. God is love. Good night, good night."
Those words by a man who left forever his mark on earth by writing great hymns of praise to God tell us something very important about why we have gathered here this Easter Day to celebrate the risen Christ. For Ira Sankey's blind eyes could see God when it mattered the most, as he was passing from this life into the life immortal. He had learned through a lifetime of praise and service to his Lord, that Jesus Christ is that missing piece in human life, and that in the end, God is all that matters.
29. Despite Blindness
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
George Matheson was born in Glasgow, Scotland, in 1842. Before he reached the age of two, it was discovered that his eyesight was defective. He, his parents, and the specialists fought a heroic fight, but before George had finished his course at Glasgow University he was completely blind. With courage and faith he graduated with honors in philosophy, studied for the ministry, and in a few years' time became the minister of one of the largest churches in Edinburgh, where he carried on a memorable ministry. In addition to his laborious preparation of his services he did a great deal of parish visitation, wrote numerous articles and twelve books, and continued his own studies throughout his life.
It must have been heartbreaking for George Matheson's parents to have a strange infection in their baby's eyes lead to his blindness. Yet, in that tragic situation George Matheson found God's resources available for him. God poured into his heart the courage, resourcefulness, and grim perseverance that gave him victory over his handicap. Through it all his faith grew stronger, and after twenty years of blindness he wrote:
O Love that will not let me go,
I rest my weary soul in Thee!
I give Thee back the life I owe,
That in Thine ocean depths its flow
May richer, fuller be.
30. On The Sidelines of Life
Illustration
Ever feel as though you are left-over or on the sidelines of life? A quarterback was realistic about his status on the team. The coach was drilling all the quarterbacks: He said to them, "The ball is on your OWN four yard line. Time is running out. It's third down." Then, the coach looked straight at this boy and said, "Quick now! What would you do?" To which this young man responded without hesitation, "I'd slide down the bench to get a better view of the next play!"
31. The Little Voice Inside - Don't Listen To It
Illustration
Mark Twain
When I was a boy, I was walking along a street and happened to spy a cart full of watermelons. I was fond of watermelon, so I sneaked quietly up to the cart and snitched one. Then I ran into a nearby alley and sank my teeth into the melon. No sooner had I done so, however, than a strange feeling came over me. Without a moment's hesitation, I made my decision. I walked back to the cart, replaced the melon—and took a ripe one.
32. A Morning Greeting
Illustration
Andrew R. Wolfe
James Snelling, of Richmond, Virginia is 72 years old. Every single morning, unless the weather is very bad, James stands at the corner of Maple Avenue and Bremo Road there in Richmond, and what he does is he simply waves to the passing motorists, waves ‘good morning' to them. He has become a kind of self-appointed ambassador of goodwill on that corner, and every day at 7:15 he's there and he stays until 9:00 A.M.
Because he's not as spry as he used to be, he has to often use his cane as he stands there. In an interview, James said that women are generally more generous in responding to his greeting than men are. One day he counted 180 women who waved back and only 75 men. A guy kind of thing, I guess. James went on to say, "You know, I just do it for the fun of it, and what I have found is if you are nice to people, welcoming to people, they respond to that and they are nice in return."
Now that's such a simple kind of thing, isn't it, but how profound that is. Hospitality is simply the ability to make another person feel welcome in a sincere kind of way. In a lonely world where people are rushing to one place or another, these busy motorists were made to feel welcome in the world by this man who stood there on the corner waving to them - someone who dared to break through that barrier of isolation and dared to offer a sign of hospitality.
33. Illustrations for Lent Easter Old Testament Texts
Illustration
Jon L. Joyce
1. God destroys as well as preserves [Isaiah 42:14]
Luther says that God is to be both loved and feared. The same God of compassion who is eager to show love to those who turn to him is equally determined to root out and destroy evil. Isaiah is warning us not to be lulled to sleep by thinking only of the kindness of God. He who shows patience toward our waywardness will eventually cease to overlook unatoned sin and will destroy. He holds all the power of the universe in his hands to work his ends. Our eternal destiny is for him to determine. Are we tempting God by clinging to things he opposes? Remember God has said, "I will destroy." The time to repent and make peace with him is now.
2. Christ will restore sight [Isaiah 42:16]
A blind beggar walking down a street on a day in spring carried a sign saying, "It is April, and I am blind." How pitiful that he was blind at any time. But on a spring day it was even worse; he could not see the newly formed leaves on the trees, or the beautiful flowers blooming on every hand. He could not see the earth bathed in sunshine or the glow of a sunset in the western sky. But another blindness is even worse. It can come to those who have retained their physical sight. There is a saying, "None is so blind as he that will not see." When Isaiah talks of the blind he includes everyone who does not have spiritual insight. Children laugh at the phrase, "I see, said the blind man." Yet it is true that the physically blind can see many things which the person with sight overlooks. So God promises to help us in our spiritual blindness. He will show us the path of righteousness, reveal opportunities to serve our fellow man, to improve ourselves, and to see the Christ who is hidden from those who do not believe in Him.
3. Idolators shall be ashamed [Isaiah 42:17]
Idol worship seems like something out of the long past. It brings to mind visions of ignorant people in an earlier age bowing down before a statue which to them is their god. So this verse does not seem to apply to the one who reads it today. Here is where we deceive ourselves. Idolatry is a very subtle thing. It was said of Sampson that he did not know when the Lord had forsaken him, and thought he could go on in strength as he had before. So idolatry creeps upon anyone who is not alert. It is so easy to cater to oneself; to want fame and fortune so badly that we slowly let these desires come between us and God. Beware lest great shame come upon you because idols of today have subtly replaced God in your objectives and desires.
4. God will be praised for his law (Gospel) [Isaiah 42:21]
Our age is one of much disdain for God’s law. The ten commandments are regarded by many as out of date. They are as foolish in disdaining God’s rules and thinking they have outgrown them as was a certain sailor. The captain had pointed out the north star before turning over the wheel to the young seaman. He told the young man to steer constantly toward that star. The captain then took a nap and upon awakening found that the ship was not on course. When he questioned the young sailor what had gone wrong, he was told, "I have sailed past that star, show me another one." No one can sail past the ten commandments. They remain as up-to-date as the day’s news announcements. God has chosen to give honor to his eternal rules, whether they be revealed in the Ten Commandments or in Jesus Christ. The wise will realize the worth of God’s laws and strive to obey and honor them.
34. JAILER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Acts 16:27 - "When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped."
As a legal punishment, imprisonment is not found in ancient law, and it does not appear in the Bible until the Persian period. Of course, now we are talking about prisons such as we know them today. To a degree, we can say that the forced-labor camps to which the Israelites were sent by the Egyptian rulers, or those of Solomon, were prisons, and that, therefore, the overseers of these camps would correspond to the jailer.
But, in general, if a man were detained on any charge, he would have what we would consider to be "house arrest," that is, he was confined to a specified area beyond which he might not go. And if you’re thinking that this shows a remarkable degree of leniency, you are quite wrong. Prisons were seldom needed because justice was executed on the spot - and execute is the right word for what frequently happened.
However, by New Testament times, prisons are mentioned as holding persons who are awaiting trial or execution, and also as punishment by itself. In these cases, when there was a considerable number of prisoners, one of the jailers served as a warden. He either combined the duties of guard and warden, or he served in only a supervisory role. In either case, he was responsible for the prisoners, as we see from our text. Because he thought his prisoners had escaped, the jailer was about to kill himself, rather than stand trial for negligence.
The comparison to today is obvious - the jailer or prison guard or warden of our modern penal institutions. And to an extent, this could also include others on the staff of these institutions who are responsible for punishing the guilty, and, hopefully, rehabilitating them into good citizens. Incarceration has been man’s only recourse from the criminal for many centuries now, and still human nature hasn’t changed. Perhaps there is a better way!
35. Accustomed to the Dark
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Sir John Wilson traveled 50 thousand miles a year on behalf of the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness. That's an organization that brings sight to over 100,000 people every year.
It's remarkable that Wilson himself was blind.
One year, he traveled to the village of Nakong in Northern Ghana where almost everyone is blind.Farmers taught him to plant grain by following a straight piece of bamboo. Their wives went to the well by following a piece of rope. Nelson discovered that these villagers were so accustomed to blindness they found it difficult to believe that the rest of the world could see.
Doesn't something like that happen to all of us?
It's easy to fall into a rut of a morality far below even our own standards; easy to lose ourselves in the dark -- and get the notion that no light exists.
36. Clergy Playing It Safe
Illustration
In a book entitled Plain Talk about Churches and Money, one of the authors states: "Clergy often come to their calling with a distinct aversion to conflict and to having to deal with money issues. Our culture seems to reinforce them in that behavior. So long as clergy are cowed and anxious in the face of money and wealth, they will remain silent about the spiritual issue that touches our culture more deeply than any other. The more I steeped myself in this book and looked at churches around me, the more I became convinced this behavior is the way a culture controls a challenge to itself. A money-driven culture seems to want clergy who are ‘safe' and "tame" when dealing with the spiritual dimension of money."
The possibilities go in two directions: one, Jesus is overwhelmed, startled and delighted at this woman's faith, she has done more than all those who are supposedly leaders of the church. She gives sacrificially. They give a token. He wants them all to see real faith at work.
At the same time, she is giving with purpose and meaning, she understands what she has done. Like the woman in the poem, "When I am Old I Am Going to Wear Purple", she gives with freedom, abandon, boldly, bravely, with the sure knowledge that she will not eat, but not caring. She is in control, and has decided to pick her destiny.
The other possibility, and it is a dark one, is that Jesus walks out of the Temple, condemning it to destruction, because he has seen with his own eyes the final straw: the devouring of a widow by the very Temple itself. In allowing the widow to give everything away without any thought to care, the leaders of the Temple beg for their own destruction. From those who have been given much, much is expected.
37. You'll Pay for the Play
Illustration
Staff
Once there was a man who was such a golf addict that he was neglecting his job. Frequently he would call in sick as an excuse to play.
One morning, after making his usual call to the office, an angel up above spotted him on the way to the golf course and decided to teach him a lesson. "If you play golf today, you will be punished," the angel whispered in his ear.
Thinking it was only his conscience, which he had successfully whipped in the past, the fellow just smiled. "No," he said, "I've been doing this for years. No one will ever know. I won't be punished."
The angel said no more. The fellow stepped up to the first tee, where he promptly whacked the ball 300 yards straight down the middle of the fairway. Since he had never driven the ball more than 200 yards, he couldn't believe it. Yet, there it was. His luck continued: long drives on every hole, perfect putting. By the ninth hole, he was six under par and was playing near-perfect golf. The fellow was walking on air. He wound up with an amazing 61, about 30 strokes under his usual game. Wait until he got back to the office and told them about this! But, suddenly, his face fell. He couldn't tell them. He could never tell anyone. The angel smiled.
Punishment doesn't have to be fire and brimstone for us to feel the pain. For every action, there is a consequence, sometimes a reward, sometimes a punishment.
38. Closing Time
Illustration
Staff
At the end of the 19th century two French writers went to visit the well-known French scientist, Pierre Berthelot. Berthelot was a kind of scientific prophet. He forecast some of the weapons of mass destruction which would appear in the next century. He said to the writers, "We have only begun to list the alphabet of destruction." Silence fell over the meeting. Then the elder of the two writers said quietly, "I think before that time comes, God will come like a great gatekeeper with his keys dangling at his waist and say, 'Gentlemen, it's closing time.'"
Could that writer imagine today the destructive powers of today's militaries? Trying to predict the end times is as foolish an endeavor as their is in Christianity. Jesus warned us not to do it but to simply be ready.
39. How My Light Is Spent
Illustration
Robert Pack and Jay Parini, Editors, adapted from Miller Williams
When I read in the scriptures of Bartimaeus regaining his sight, I celebrate the power of faith. One of the greatest poems in the English language was written by John Milton in 1652 as he dealt with the onset of his own blindness.John Milton’s contention with himself as he thought on his blindness was not simply a complaint ora chastening. Clearly he was in anguish not only at his loss of sight but at his inability to serve God as he thought he should. But, Milton found through his loss not only the resignation to abide it but turned his mind with a startling clarity of thought and vision to writing his most memorable work: Paradise Lost.
Listen to Milton's words in another poem about his experience of turning darkness into light. Here is Milton's"How My Light is Spent":
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."
True faith has vision that goes beyond mere sight. Or as Jesus would say to blind Bartemaeus, as to all of us, "Do you want to see?"
40. Content with the Customs
Illustration
Staff
From the rule of St. Benedict, Sixth Century A.D.:
"If any pilgrim monk come from distant parts, with wish as a guest to dwell in the monastery, and will be content with the customs which he finds in the place, and do not perchance by his lavishness disturb the monastery, but is simply content with what he finds, he shall be received, for as long a time as he desires. If, indeed, he find fault with anything, or expose it, reasonably, and with the humility of charity, the Abbot shall discuss it prudently, lest perchance God has sent him for this very thing. But if he have been found lavish or vicious in the time of his sojourn as guest, not only ought he not to be joined to the body of the monastery, but also it shall be said to him, honestly, that he must depart. If he does not go, let two stout monks, in the name of God, explain the matter to him."
Okay, so maybe that last line was not part of the original sixth century text, but hospitality has always been central tochristian practice and as I have gotten older I realize how important it is. Even Jesus spoke of being welcomed as a test of our truediscipleship. Perhaps no greater witness to our internal faith is the outward practice of hospitality. Now, I'm not talking about running a BnB. I am talking about welcomingand accepting others with grace.
Note: The Rule of Saint Benedict is a book of precepts, or instructions, written in 516 dealing with theconcerns andneeds of monks in a community environment. The book attemptsto establish due order, to foster an understanding of the relational nature of human beings, and to provide a spiritual father to support and strengthen the individual's ascetic effort and the spiritual growth that is required for the fulfillment of the human vocation, theosis. The Rule provides a moderate path between individual zeal and formulaic institutionalism; because of this middle ground it has been widely popular.
41. Christ Plus
Illustration
Larry Powell
It is commonly acceptedthat the first Church Council met in Jerusalem sometime between A.D. 44-47. Acts 15:4-19 relates that a major part of the agenda was concerned with the matter of whether or not circumcision should be required of Gentile converts. The Jerusalem party said "Yes," while Paul and Barnabas, who were not requiring circumcision of their new converts said "No." A lengthy debate ensued, followed by a brief statement by Peter: "And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren ... why do you make a trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers or we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, just as they will" (10-11).
Peter’s argument against requiring circumcision of Gentile converts was followed by a pronounced silence within the assembly. After a while, Paul and Barnabas recounted some of the "signs and wonders" which God had accomplished through them among the Gentiles. Finally, James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem and, according to one tradition, the brother of Jesus, concluded the matter with an authoritative judgment: "Brethren ... my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God" (13-19).
The Council has decided: 1. salvation hinges upon but one requirement - faith in Jesus Christ; 2. Christianity would widen it’s orbit to become a world religion. The message of Christ was conceived to be too wonderful to be confined to a clique, territory, or any exclusive setting; 3. Christianity, unlike a religion based upon legalism, is a matter of the spirit.
The issue had clearly been what Charles M. Laymon calls the matter of "Christ-plus." "Christ-plus" refers to whether or not salvation requires anything in addition to faith in Christ. In other words, is salvation understood to mean faith in Christ plus something else? Unfortunately, it is not unusual to observe certain Christians who insist that salvation requires faith in Christ plus participation in a specific mode of baptism, or manner of observing the Lord’s Supper, or actually belonging to a particular fellowship. Exclusiveness erects fences. Jesus Christ tears down fences.
John Bunyan in his immortal allegory, Pilgrims’ Progress, told of the pilgrim who set out from the City of Destruction for the City of Life. Pilgrim will forever be known as a selfish and unworthy man because he made the pursuit of his own salvation his chief aim in life, leaving his own family behind in the City of Destruction. Devoted though he was, he was yet misled by the "Christ-plus" attitude.
Salvation is not so much a matter of what one must do, as a matter of what Christ has already done in our behalf.
42. Taking our Punishment
Illustration
John R. Steward
There was a little boy who would always come home late from school. Even though his parents told him that they did not want him to do this, he would still be late in coming home from school. There was always something to distract the little boy. He would get into a dodgeball game after school with some other boys and would lose track of time and would come home late. His parents always worried about him. All they wanted him to do was come home from school first and then he could go out and play. They would explain to him that they only wanted to know that he was safe. After every explanation, he would promise to do better and each day he would be tempted away by friends on their bikes or by some local dog with whom he could play catch.
Finally, the day came when the parents decided that they had to take some kind of action. They told the boy that if he failed to do what they were asking, they would have to punish him. He seemed to understand. In fact, the next morning as he left for school, his mother reminded him that he had to come home right after school and he said that he would. When the last bell rang, he began his journey home, totally forgetting what his parents had asked of him. He got so involved in a game with some other boys that by the time he got home his father had already arrived home from work. The boy noticed that it was unusually quiet in the house so he went upstairs to play with his toys.
When he was called downstairs for dinner, he went over to the place where he usually sat and he could not believe his eyes. There on his plate was a slice of bread next to a glass of water. He stared at it for a while, realizing that this was his punishment for being late. Then his father reached over and took the plate with the slice of bread and replaced it with his own plate. His father's plate was filled with slices of roast beef and mashed potatoes covered with gravy. Throughout the rest of the meal, the boy ate the roast beef, while the father ate the slice of bread and drank the water.
Many years later when that boy became a man, he said that this experience taught him what God was really like. He is the one who would come and take our punishment. He is the one who would come to destroy death. Through the cross of Jesus and his resurrection, we too can learn what God is really like.
Adapted by Dynamic Preaching, Seven Word Corporation, September, 1996, p. 38.
43. With Fire In His Eyes
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
There was fire in his eyes as Dr. Yacob spoke. Dr. Yacob is from the northernmost part of ancient Ethiopia. This northern area of Ethiopia has recently become a nation of its own, the nation of Eritrea. Dr. Yacob was born and raised in Asmara, the capital of Eritrea. Early on in his life he had a fire in his eyes for the gospel message of Jesus Christ. In his school days he was already an evangelist telling other students about Jesus. He fought with school authorities in order to get a place on the school grounds where the students might meet for Bible study and prayer.
After high school Dr. Yacob attended the Lutheran seminary in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He was a dilligent student. He eventually received a scholarship to study abroad and received his Ph.D. in Old Testament studies. In 1978 Dr. Yacob was elected to be the general secretary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea. These were difficult times. Eritrea was fighting a full scale civil war with Ethiopia. The nation was paralyzed. The resources for life -- things like food, water, firewood, gas and electricity -- were very scarce. People lived on the edge of desperate poverty. People lived on the edge of death.
In the midst of this poverty, war and destruction Dr. Yacob was determined to rebuild many of the church buildings that had been destroyed. The churches were very well attended in these years. "Every Sunday is like Christmas," Dr. Yacob once said. With the help of overseas partners many of the churches in Eritrea were rebuilt in the midst of ruin. Many 37questioned Dr. Yacob's choice of church building in this desperate situation. "Building a building is a sign of hope," he maintained with fire in his eyes. "We trust God to be Lord of Life in the midst of death. The buildings were like miracles for us. Jeremiah bought a field at Anathoth just when he thought the land was to be taken away by destruction. His action was a sign of hope for the future. Our buildings are a sign of hope for our future. All could see that in the midst of death, the church was alive."
Dr. Yacob works in France now in the Department of Ecumenical Research for the Lutheran World Federation. This is a leader tested by life. This is a leader who has lived through the hell of war and poverty. Now he travels the whole world over. In far too many places he sees the same kind of conditions that he once saw in Eritrea. Poverty stalks the earth in a million guises. Poverty has churned up his insides. He has simply seen too much suffering.
Speaking to a group of Lutheran missionaries not long ago Dr. Yacob spoke with the accustomed fire in his eyes. "These conditions around the world must stop," he exploded. "I've talked with Lutheran leaders in churches around the world where poverty reigns. We decry the working of the economic systems of our world today. We decry the economic injustice that we see everywhere. We decry a world where some live in magnificent luxury while the world's billions starve to death. This has to stop! We are ready to propose that world Lutheranism adopt it as a basic confession of being a Christian that economic systems which create injustice and inequity must be rejected." "
44. DEFUSE YOUR FUSE
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Not all murderers are behind bars. Even churches are full of them. We all know that those who kill bodies are subject to punishment by law. Jesus tells us that it is just as much an act of murder to lash out at someone with our tongue as with our hands. A tongue can destroy lives and reputations as effectively as a tornado can wreck a town. While destruction is accomplished in minutes, restoration often takes years.
Without mincing words, Jesus says that a lashing tongue can lead us to everlasting hell. Control your anger! You have no right to dump it on anyone ... whether subtly or blatantly. Every human being that casts a shadow upon this earth is a child of God ... included in the category of the human race are also parents, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children, and neighbors. The blood of Jesus Christ ran freely for each of these people. We have no right to destroy someone whom God has declared precious by his Son’s sacrifice.
Throughout the Bible we are warned to control our temper. Only in instances of injustice are we permitted to show anger. We can be angry over one person’s unjustness to another. The Greek word behind the term for anger in the New Testament is the word orgay. Taken from the realm of nature it suggests a superabundant swelling of sap and vigor, thrusting and upsurging in nature. It connotes an impulsiveness found in all of us.
As impulsive as anger might be, it can be controlled. Saint Paul says to the church at Ephesus, "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice." God does not command us to achieve that which is impossible to achieve. To control our anger, we must first believe that it can be controlled and then seek God’s help in controlling it. We can control anger through the powerful presence of Jesus Christ in our lives. Christ can help us defuse our fuse before we blow. He can even change us from a beast into a teddy bear. We must first want the change to take place, then seek it, and before long, with God’s help, we’ll have it.
45. Virtue in Anxious Times
Illustration
Paul J. Wadell
Anxiety's central message is that we cannot afford to share because we can never have enough. Put more strongly, in a culture marked by anxiety and fear, the very things we have traditionally called sins or vices (hoarding, greed, suspicion) become wise and prudent virtues. Fear, rather than love, governs our lives. But such fear is a kind of idolatry because it suggests we are giving more attention to our own security than we are giving to God. As Scott Bader-Saye warns, "the ethic of security produces a skewed moral vision. It suggests that suspicion, preemption, and accumulation are virtues insofar as they help us feel safe. But when seen from a Christian perspective, such ‘virtues' fail to be true virtues, since they do not orient us to the true good—love of God and neighbor. In fact, they turn us away from the true good, tempting us to love safety more than we love God."
The "human way out" of the despair of our age is through hospitality because a person well practiced in Christian hospitality chooses love over fear, trust over suspicion, and even risk over security.
46. The Surprise Twist
Illustration
Carl Jech
A Methodist minister who just died was being shown around heaven by St. Peter. A couple minutes into the tour he saw an old friend of his. But it was a disturbing sight. Attached to his friend's leg by a large chain was the most hideous blob of sticky protoplasm he had ever seen. "What is that?" he asked St. Peter, scarcely able to control his horror.
"Oh," said St. Peter. "Well, you see your friend was far from perfect in his life on earth and this is his punishment."
A little further on the man saw another friend with an even more hideous blob attached to his leg. "I guess Leo did quite a few bad things in his life too, eh?" "I'm afraid so," St. Peter responded.
Going on the man suddenly recognized [name someone here that can take a joke being told on them], who also had a chain attached to his leg. But at the other end of the chain was Dolly Parton! "My goodness!" exclaimed the tourist. "Bishop Anderson must have been a very good fellow while he was on earth to receive Dolly Parton (or use a more contemporary star) as his reward!"
"Oh, no, no," said St. Peter, "you don't understand. The Bishop is Dolly Parton's punishment!"
47. Blizzard Stories
Illustration
Steven Molin
Everybody loves to talk about the weather. Garrison Keillor loves to talk about "the winter of '65." He says that in describing the storms of that year, truth is only the starting point. The snow, the wind, the cold temperatures, yup, it was a miserable year, 1965. Keillor said that one night, it snowed so hard that he had to drive with his car door open so that he could follow the tracks in the snow; and he drove two miles before he realized that the track he was following was made by his own front tire.
Here's Another: In November of 1940, the Mother of All Blizzards struck Minnesota with a vengeance. That autumn day started out balmy enough, but in the early afternoon, the temperature plummeted and the blizzard roared. The Twin Cities got 17 inches of snow; 27 inches in St. Cloud. Farmers were caught unprepared in their fields, and hunters were stranded in their duck blinds. In all, 49 people died in Minnesota, while 59 sailors died on Lake Superior. And everyone who survived The Armistice Day Blizzard will tell you the same thing; that the storm came out of nowhere.
It truth, most storms do. Even in an age with Doppler radar and SkyMax 5 and trained meteorologists, storms are not always predictable. When they arrive unexpectedly, they can wreak havoc in our lives. And yet, the greatest storms in life have nothing to do with low pressure systems or cold fronts. The greatest storms come through the sudden twists and turns of our own lives. One day you go to the doctor's office for a routine exam and the next day your life is turned upside down by the results. Or your marriage is humming along just smoothly until one day your spouse tells you they want a divorce. Or you struggle to keep your head just above water financially, and then the boss announces a downsizing plan. Or a child gets sick, or a parent dies, or there is a fire, or there is a family fight. Suddenly, a storm hits you with a vengeance, and your life takes a dramatic and serious turn. The one common thread in each of these circ*mstances is that you didn't see the storm coming…just like the Armistice Day Blizzard of 1940.
48. Right Questions
Illustration
James W. Moore
I am a collector of lists. I want to share with you this morning my favorite list of all time. It's a list of answers given by English school children on their religion exams.
Noah's wife was called Joan of the Ark.
A myth is a female moth.
Sometimes it is difficult to hear in church because the agnostics are so terrible.
The Pope lives in a vacuum.
The Fifth Commandment is "Humor your father and mother."
This is my favorite of all:
Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day and a ball of fire by night.
The point is: right answers are important, but have you thought about this - so are right questions! So the right question I want to raise with you today is this: How long has it been since you had a powerful moment that changed your life forever?
49. End of the World: Bringing Down the House
Illustration
The Danish philosopher, Kierkegaard, tells a parable of a theater where a variety show is proceeding. Each show is more fantastic than the last, and is applauded by the audience. Suddenly the manager comes forward. He apologizes for the interruption, but the theater is on fire, and he begs his patrons to leave in an orderly fashion. The audience thinks this is the most amusing turn of the evening, and cheer thunderously. The manager again implores them to leave the burning building, and he is again applauded vigorously. At last he can do no more. The fire raced through the whole building and the fun-loving audience with it. "And so," concluded Kierkegaard, "will our age, I sometimes think, go down in fiery destruction to the applause of a crowded house of cheering spectators."
50. Stealing from Ourselves
Illustration
King Duncan
Motivational speaker Zig Ziglar tells about a most successful jewel thief back in the Roaring Twenties by the name of Arthur Berry. Berry liked to hobnob with the rich and famous of Boston's elite, except he did his hobnobbing at night when they weren't around. He wouldn't steal from just anybody. As a matter of fact, a visit from Arthur was a status symbol among the ladies of Boston's upper class. The police weren't nearly as intrigued by his status-oriented thievery. And one night they caught him and shot three times. He fell through a glass window, shattered glass stuck in his body, and lay on the ground in excruciating pain. Not surprisingly, he came to a conclusion amidst the blood, glass, and handcuffs, and muttered, "I ain't going to do this anymore!"
To make a long story short, Arthur eventually got out of prison two decades later, and settled down in a quiet New England town. There he became a respected citizen, even leading a local veteran's organization. But it finally leaked out to the press that this notorious jewel thief was holed up in this tiny New England hamlet and the nation's media arrived in droves. One young reporter asked him, "Mr. Berry, you stole from a lot of wealthy people in your life as a jewel thief. Let me ask you a question. From whom did you steal the most?"
Without a moment's hesitation Arthur Berry replied, "That's the easiest question I've ever been asked. The man from whom I stole the most was Arthur Berry. You see, I could have been a baron on Wall Street. I could have been a successful business man, had I utilized my God-given talents and developed them legitimately. I could have made it big in business but I spent two-thirds of my adult life behind bars."
Arthur Berry was a thief who stole from himself. He did not use the God-given talents and opportunities at his disposal, and it haunted him forever. How about you? If the bridegroom were to come tonight and ask you to give an account of your life, could you say that you had taken complete advantage of the opportunities you have been given?
Showing
1
to
50
of
228
results
- UK tribunal member rebuked for bias in Christian teacher’s case: 'Undermining trust'
- Jeremiah Johnson’s brother claims he faked pro-Trump prophecies, visions
- Calvin Robinson warns UK on 'cusp of a civil war' amid simmering tensions, riots
- Episcopal Church launches AI chatbot ‘AskCathy’
- Biden opens up about why he quit race, points to pressure from Democrats: ‘A transition president’
- Illinois law threatens religious employers' right to hire staff who share their beliefs, ADF warns
- Archaeologists uncover quarry stones possibly used to build road walked by Jesus, disciples
- Harrison Butker defends speech comments as he becomes NFL's highest-paid kicker
- 'So many questions, so few answers': Nelon daughter's faith endures amid tragic plane crash
- Iranian 'surprise' attack on Israel could 'even last three to four days,' says Iranian lawmaker
- Died: Patricia Gundry, Evangelical Feminist Who Wanted Women to Be Free
- Some Churches Lose Coverage as Insurers Hit by a Wave of Storm Claims
- The Olympics’ Most Iconic Photo Has a Christian Message
- Died: Doris Brougham, Missionary Who Taught English to Taiwan
- Walz’s Brand Is More Left than Lutheran Among Minnesota Evangelicals
- Why Changes to India’s Colonial Criminal Code Concern Christians
- Gordon College Loses Religious Liberty Case for Loan Forgiveness
- Yes, Fiji Olympians Are Singing Hymns
- Churches Find a Homelessness Solution in Their Own Backyards
- Venezuelan Churches Brace for Migration Wave After Disputed Maduro Election
- A woman dies after being caught in a baggage carousel, and more shocking news
- Queenie Hallegua, second-to-last Jewish resident of historic Indian Jewish community, dies at 89
- 4 Signs That A Marriage Is Sure To End In Divorce—By A Psychologist
- Prominent German cantor and opera singer is killed in what police say was a family dispute
- To the Left, Now Even Viewpoint Diversity Is ‘White Supremacy’
- Triptii Dimri and Avinash Tiwary’s Laila Majnu Goes From Box Office Dud To Soft Hit After Its Rerelease
- Stretched 12 inches on the rack, crushed in iron maidens… or killed with an 'anal pear': Terrifying...
- The Druze Religion, Explained
- Iran’s Chief Rabbi observes Tisha B’Av in Tehran - watch
- Megan Basham Reveals How ‘Non-Christian Billionaires’ Are Co-opting Churches For Democrats
- Where is the Most Religious Place in the World?
- Bigoted Kamala Harris and Her Long History of Faith-Based Discrimination
- Why the Temple Curtain was Torn in Two When Jesus Died
- Parishes Preparing Their People for...What Exactly?
- 10 Years After Ferguson: What Does It Mean to Be the Church?
- You Cannot Lie Your Way to the Truth
- American Gen Z: Depressed and Spiritually Hungry
- Time to Reclaim Jewish Indigeneity
- Case Dismissed Against Man Charged in Death of Synagogue Leader
- New Book Explores Richard Nixon's Religious Journey
