Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

Abomination is used of idols (e.g., 2Kings 23:13, 24; Jer. 7:30; cf. Ezek. 8:10), forbidden practices (e.g., 2Kings 23:24), and generally anything contrary to the true worship of Israel’s God (e.g., 2Chron. 15:8; Isa. 66:3; Jer. 4:1; cf. forbidden foods [Lev. 11:10, 13, 42] and ceremonial defilement [Lev. 7:21]). The term also includes the prohibition of idol worship (Deut. 7:25; 27:15; 32:16) but can more widely apply to immorality (e.g., Lev. 18:22, 26 27), prophecy that leads to paganism (Deut. 13:13–14), blemished animals offered in sacrifice to Yahweh (Deut. 17:1), and heathen divination (Deut. 18:9, 12).

The “abomination of desolation” (NIV: “abomination that causes desolation”), or “desolating sacrifice,” refers to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple. The description occurs or is alluded to in Dan. 8:11; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; 2Thess. 2:4, as well as 1Macc. 1:54–64. These texts seem to attest to two or three stages of fulfillment of the prophecy.

Ben-Ammi was the son of Abraham’s nephew Lot and the younger of Lot’s two daughters (Gen. 19:3638). He is represented as the ancestor of the Ammonites, a Transjordanian people who were a perennial threat to Israel from the wilderness period through to David’s reign.

The nation of Ammon was located east of the Jordan, just north of the Dead Sea. Its capital was Rabbah, and it bordered Gad to the west, the half-tribe of Manasseh to the northwest, and Moab to the south (see also Deut. 3:16). Much of the source of their contention was over the fertile land of Gilead, which encompassed the Jordan River and bordered Ephraim, the western tribe of Manasseh, Benjamin, and Judah.

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

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

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

A cross is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were either tied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. The Latin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly used by the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, which allowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John 19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.).

Not long before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees who opposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character for the Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as well as by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans who perfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romans called crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because it was intended for the lowest members of society. It became the preferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion, spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common in NT times and extended well into the fourth century AD.

As for the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion, the OT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev. 17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar for the sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins of the world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest atoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for a new covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). The cross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died “for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shame of the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood (Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesus also bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross. The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’s curse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’s curse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus demonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by his obedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesus the cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for a worthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love in the Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and follow his example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ cross is a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Most of all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offered his Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1John 4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, who willingly laid down his life (1John 3:16).

(1)The fifth of Jacob’s twelve sons, and the namesake of one of Israel’s twelve tribes, Dan was the first son of Bilhah, servant to Rachel.

(2)The city of Dan, originally known as Laish. After attacking the people of Laish (Leshem) and destroying the city, the Danites rebuilt it, settled there, and named it “Dan” after their forefather (Judg. 18:2729; cf. Josh. 19:40–48).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rock dove was domesticated throughout the ancient Near East and used for carrying messages long before Roman times. It breeds prolifically, and its homing instinct brings it swiftly back to its dovecote (Isa. 60:8; Hos. 11:11) or the buildings or crevices where it nests (Jer. 48:28). Israel also has three species of turtledove (Heb. tor; Gk. trygōn), one being a summer migrant (Song 2:12; Jer. 8:7).

In Israel, the dove was considered clean for food and designated for sacrifice, often as a poor person’s substitute for a lamb (Gen. 15:9; Lev. 1:14; 5:7, 11; 12:6, 8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29; Num. 6:10; Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 2:24; John 2:14, 16). The dove is first mentioned in Scripture when Noah sends out a dove from the ark (Gen. 8:812). In the NT, the dove is an image of purity (Matt. 10:16) and also symbolizes the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32), but in the Song of Songs, where the beloved, and in particular the beloved’s eyes, are likened to doves (1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2, 12; 6:9), it may also connote fertility.

The dove is also, however, mournful (Isa. 38:14; 59:11; Ezek. 7:16; Nah. 2:7), vulnerable (Ps. 74:19), and easily deceived (Hos. 7:11). When frightened, it takes flight to lonely places (Ps. 55:6; Isa. 60:8), which perhaps adds interest to the fact that Jonah’s name literally means “dove.”

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).

“Edom” denotes Esau (Gen. 25:30; 36:1, 8, 19), or the Edomites collectively (Num. 20:18, 2021; Amos 1:6, 11; 9:12; Mal. 1:4), or the land occupied by Esau’s descendants, formerly the land of Seir (Gen. 32:3; 36:20–21, 30; Num. 24:18). Edom was renowned in Israel for its wisdom (Jer. 49:7; Obad. 8), and the book of Job seems to reflect an Edomite setting.

The region stretched from the Zered Valley to the Gulf of Aqabah (about one hundred miles) and extended to both sides of the Arabah, the great depression connecting the Dead Sea to the Red Sea (Gen. 14:6; Deut. 2:1, 12; Josh. 15:1; Judg. 11:17–18; 1Kings 9:26). It is a dry, mountainous area with peaks rising to 3,500 feet. Though not a fertile land, it has cultivable areas (Num. 20:14–18). The name is derived from the Semitic root meaning “red, ruddy,” perhaps because of the reddish color of the sandstone in that region.

Following the OT, it seems that Esau’s descendants migrated to the land of Seir and in time became the dominant group, incorporating the original Horites (Gen. 14:6) and others into their number. Esau had already occupied Edom when Jacob returned from Harran (Gen. 32:3; 36:6–8; Deut. 2:4–5; Josh. 24:4). Tribal chiefs emerged here quite early (Gen. 36:15–19, 40, 43; 1Chron. 1:51, 54), and the Edomites had kings “before any Israelite king reigned” (Gen. 36:31; 1Chron. 1:43–51).

We know from the OT that after the exodus Israel was denied permission to travel by the King’s Highway (Num. 20:14–21; 21:4; Judg. 11:17–18). Still, Israelites were forbidden to abhor their Edomite brothers (Deut. 23:7–8). Joshua allotted the territory of Judah up to the borders of Edom (Josh. 15:1, 21), but the Israelites were not allowed to encroach on their lands.

Despite the brotherly relationship between Edom and Israel, the biblical evidence shows that the relationship between Edom and Israel was one of continuous hostility from the time of the Israelite kings. King Saul fought the Edomites (1Sam. 14:47), and David conquered Edom and put garrisons throughout the land (2Sam. 8:13–14). Edom was subjugated by Israel during the time of David but seems to have regained independence in the eighth century BC.

The prophets of Judah were very bitter against later Edom because of its stance in the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (587/586 BC), and they predicted Edom’s destruction (e.g., Obadiah). The oracle of Mal. 1:2–4 indicates that by the time of its writing, Edom was in ruin. The archaeological evidence supports the fall of Edom by the end of the sixth century BC, and there is evidence that the Nabateans (an Arabian tribe) forced their way into Edom and replaced the Edomites, many of whom went westward to southern Judea (later Idumea [cf. 1Macc. 5:3, 65]), while others may have been absorbed by the newcomers. By 312 BC the area around Petra was inhabited by Nabateans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fasting, often linked with prayer, was one avenue of appeal to God in the face of crises, both national and personal. Moses ascended to Mount Sinai and was with God forty days and nights without eating bread or drinking water, both before and after the Israelites’ sin with the golden calf (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:818). David fasted when his son was dying (2Sam. 12:15–23). Esther called all the Jews of Susa to fast for three days before she ventured before the king (Esther 4:15–17). Joel called the people to repentance and fasting as the land was devastated by a locust plague (Joel 1:13–14; 2:12). Forty days of fasting, an echo of Moses’ experience, prepared Jesus to face the devil’s temptations (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.).

The OT prophets criticized Israelites who presumed that their religious obligations were met simply by fasting (Isa. 58:1–10; Zech. 7:1–5). When asked why his disciples did not fast and pray, Jesus indicated that sometimes fasting is inappropriate (Matt. 9:14–17 pars.). Luke recorded an addition to Jesus’ statement about new wine in old wineskins: “No one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better’” (Luke 5:39), perhaps suggesting that the accumulation of fasting practices was “new wine” and they ought simply to observe the Day of Atonement.

In Proverbs, the phrase “fountain [maqor] of life” refers to the mouth of a righteous man (10:11), the law of the wise (13:14; cf. 18:4), the fear of the Lord (14:27; cf. Ps. 36:9), and understanding (Prov. 16:22). Similarly, Jer. 2:13 describes God as a fountain of living water, an idea echoed in Rev. 21:6. In Prov. 5:18 the fountain (along with wells, cisterns, streams, and springs) symbolizes the fecundity of marriage.

The “fountains of the deep” mentioned in Gen. 7:11; 8:2 (NIV: “springs of the deep”); Prov. 8:28 refer to a particular aspect of ancient cosmology: the notion that the terrestrial earth is supported by pillars (see Job 9:6; Ps. 75:3) above a subterranean sea. In the story of the great flood, the “fountains” of this sea, the “great deep,” were a source of the waters of the flood.

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

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

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

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

The harvest was a major event on the yearly calendar of Israel’s agrarian society (Lev. 25:11; Judg. 15:1; Ruth 1:22; 2Sam. 21:910). Life was dependent on the harvest. As a result, God set certain rules with respect to the harvest to help the Israelites keep proper priorities. Every seven years and every fiftieth year, the people were to give the land a rest (Exod. 23:10; Lev. 25:20–22). The people were to rest on the Sabbath, even during the harvesttime (Exod. 34:21). Some portions of crops were to be left in the field so that the poor might have food (Lev. 19:9; 23:22; Deut. 24:21). The people were to acknowledge God as the source of the harvest by offering the first of the produce (Lev. 23:10). Celebrating the harvest was commanded (Exod. 23:16; Deut. 16:15; Isa. 9:3). Planning for the harvest was a mark of wisdom (Prov. 6:8; 10:5; 20:4). Even as a good harvest was the blessing of God (Ps. 67:6; Isa. 62:9), so a bad harvest was a curse from God and the plight of a fool (1Sam. 12:17; Job 5:5; Prov. 26:1; Isa. 18:4–5; Jer. 8:13, 20; Joel 3:12; Mic. 6:15). Failure to acknowledge God for the harvest was a sin (Jer. 5:24).

The harvest is often used in Scripture as an analogy. The prophets talk about the negative harvest of idolatry (Isa. 17:11). Israel is called the firstfruits of God’s harvest (Jer. 2:3). Hosea uses the idea of harvest to indicate that God’s people have a future (Hos. 6:11). In the Gospels, the harvest is used as an analogy for those needing to hear the good news (Matt. 9:37–38), for the end times (Matt. 13:24–30; Rev. 14:15), and for a lesson about unfaithful leadership (Matt. 21:33–46; 25:24). In the remainder of the NT, the harvest analogy usually refers to Christian growth and salvation (Rom. 1:13; 1Cor. 9:10–11; 2Cor. 9:10; Gal. 6:9; Heb. 12:11; James 3:18).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moab proper lies between the Arnon and the Zered valleys east of the Dead Sea. The Arnon is the deepest gorge in Jordan (seventeen hundred feet) and is two miles wide at the upper edge. It served as a natural northern boundary for geopolitical Moab, even though the nation frequently expanded its control farther north.

After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s daughters determined to carry on the family line by sleeping with their father (Gen. 19:3038). The son of the elder daughter was named “Moab.” According to an etymology in the LXX, the name in Hebrew means “from my father” (Gen. 19:37).

Moses’ song refers to leaders of Moab among those whom Israel would encounter (Exod. 15:15). As the Israelites made their way past Edom (Num. 20:14–21), they may also have given a wide berth to geopolitical Moab, moving instead along the desert highway to the east (Num. 21:10–20; Deut. 2:8–9; Judg. 11:18; but see also Deut. 2:29) until they arrived at the territory that Sihon, king of the Amorites, had previously captured from the Moabites (Num. 21:21–26). This is the plateau (Heb. mishor) north of the Arnon (Deut. 2:36) stretching to Ammon (Josh. 13:10). The capital city of Sihon was Heshbon on the plateau (mishor) (Josh. 13:21). After defeating the Amorites, the Israelites camped on the “plains of Moab” (Num. 22:1; 33:48–50), where they remained until crossing the Jordan River. Most likely they did not jeopardize their security by moving down into the Jordan Valley.

Frightened by this multitude, the king of Moab and the elders of Midian sent for Balaam to curse the Israelites (Num. 21–24). Instead, Balaam pronounced four sets of blessings on Israel, and in the final one Balaam spoke of a “star ... out of Jacob” who would “crush the foreheads of Moab” (Num. 24:17). Because the Moabites refused to welcome the Israelites and hired Balaam, the Moabites, along with the Ammonites, were excluded from the assembly of the Lord for ten generations (Deut. 23:3–6). The verse immediately prior to this passage excludes those born of forbidden marriages, which might be the reason for specifying Moab and Ammon.

The plateau (mishor) was allocated to the tribes of Reuben and Gad (Num. 32:34–38; Josh. 13:8–9). Their presence enabled the Israelites to maintain a hold in the region, a fact that would be significant some three centuries later (Judg. 11:26). As the Israelites prepared to enter the land, Moses restated the covenant on the plains of Moab (Num. 36:13; Deut. 29:1). When it came time for Moses to die, he climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah, and after his death the Israelites mourned him there for thirty days (Deut. 34:1–8).

During the period of the judges, the Moabites pushed north across the Arnon and as far as Jericho. When Ehud killed Eglon, the Moabites were driven back and subjected to Israel for eighty years (Judg. 3). The respite was temporary, however, due to repeated apostasy on the part of the Israelites. They turned to worship the gods of the peoples around them, among them the gods of the Moabites (Judg. 10:6).

The book of Ruth is set during the period of Judges and Ruth herself was a Moabite women, who allied herself with Israel. Ruth’s son was Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David (Ruth 4:21). This family link with Moab may explain why David sought refuge for his father and mother in Moab in the dark days when he was fleeing from Saul (1Sam. 22:1–4). David was appealing to a national enemy in doing this since Saul had been fighting against the Moabites along with the Ammonites, the Edomites, and the Philistines since he became king (1Sam. 14:47). The complexity created for David by this combination of family allegiances and ongoing national concerns is evident in his later actions as king. When he defeated the Moabites, he brutally subdued them, reducing them to a vassal kingdom (2Sam. 8:2–12). The united kingdom continued to control the plateau of Moab, evident in the towns noted in David’s census; it reached through the tribe of Gad to the city of Aroer in the Arnon Gorge (2Sam. 24:5).

Moab is the object of stinging rebuke from several prophets (Isa. 15–16; 25:10; Jer. 48; Ezek. 25:8–11; Amos 2:1–3). Moab’s forthcoming judgment is described in grim terms, equating Moab’s end to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Zeph. 2:9). Even so, God declares, “I will restore the fortunes of Moab in days to come” (Jer. 48:47). Moab will be humbled along with Edom and the Philistines at the word of the Lord (Pss. 60:8; 108:9). After the return from exile, Moabites were among those with whom the Israelites intermarried (Ezra 9:1; Neh. 13:1; cf. Deut. 23:3–6).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A prophet is a messenger of God, a person to whom God entrusts his message to an individual or to a nation. Indeed, the last book in the OT is named “Malachi,” which means “my messenger.” Isaiah heard God ask, “Whom shall I send?” and he cried out, “Send me!” (Isa. 6:8). A good template for understanding the phenomenon is Moses and Aaron. Moses was to tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron would say it. “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet’” (Exod. 7:1).

In the NT period there were a number of prophets. John the Baptist could point to Jesus and proclaim him to be the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Agabus the prophet predicted a famine and, later, Paul’s arrest (Acts 11:28; 21:1011).

Paul lists “gifts of the Spirit” (1Cor. 12:4–11), including prophecy and various phenomena reminiscent of the OT prophets’ ecstatic state. Paul warns the Corinthians not to overdo this sort of thing and so to be mature (1Cor. 14:19–20). Near the end of his life, in one of his last letters, he speaks of prophecy as normative in the church, particularly in establishing an authoritative body of elders to rule and especially to preach the gospel (1Tim. 1:18; 4:14). Peter draws a connection between the ministry of the OT prophets and the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1Pet. 1:10–12). Evangelism seems to be the normative mode for prophecy today: forthtelling by calling people to turn from their sins to Jesus, and foretelling by speaking of his return and the final judgment.

Thus, all Christians hold the office of prophet, even if they never participate in the ecstatic state experienced by the Corinthians. The greatness of a prophet is in how clearly the prophet points to Jesus. John the Baptist was the greatest of the OT prophets by that measure, but any Christian on this side of the cross and resurrection can proclaim the gospel even more clearly. Thus, the prophetic ministry of any Christian is greater than John’s (Matt. 11:11).

Five prophetesses are mentioned in the OT: Miriam (Exod. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4–5), Huldah (2Kings 22:14–20; 2Chron. 34:22–28), Isaiah’s wife (Isa. 8:3), and Noadiah (Neh. 6:14).

Similarly in the NT, Peter recognizes God’s promise through Joel being fulfilled in the gift of prophetic speech to women as well as men at Pentecost (Acts 2:18); and Paul, acknowledging that women prophesy publicly in the congregation, is concerned only with the manner of their doing so (1Cor. 11:5). The prophetess Anna proclaims the baby Jesus as the Messiah (Luke 2:36–38), Luke reports that the four unmarried daughters of Philip the evangelist also prophesy (Acts 21:8–9). The only false prophetess in the NT is the apocalyptic figure of Jezebel in Rev. 2:20.

Righteousness is an important theme in both Testaments of the Bible. The concept includes faithfulness, justice, uprightness, correctness, loyalty, blamelessness, purity, salvation, and innocence. Because the theme is related to justification, it has important implications for the doctrine of salvation.

Being careful to avoid imposing Western philosophical categories onto OT texts, we may say that the core idea of righteousness is conformity to God’s person and will in moral uprightness, justness, justice, integrity, and faithfulness. Behind the many and varied uses of righteousness language in the OT stands the presupposition that God himself is righteous in the ultimate sense (e.g., Ezra 9:15; Isa. 45:21; Zeph. 3:5). Righteousness is the expression of his holiness in relationship to others (Isa. 5:16), and all other nuances of righteousness in the biblical texts are derived from this.

Related to humans, righteousness is often found as the opposite of wickedness. Righteousness often occurs in evaluative contexts, where it relates to proper conduct with respect to God, the order of the world as he created it, the covenant, or law (e.g., Deut. 6:25). God reigns in righteousness and justice (e.g., Ps. 97:2), and humans should align their conduct with this righteous reign. Righteousness can be expressed as personal integrity with phrases such as “my righteousness” (2Sam. 22:21, 25; Ps. 7:8) and “their righteousness” (1Sam. 26:23). Unrighteousness is found in poetic parallel to injustice (e.g., Jer. 22:13); the unjust are parallel with the wicked (Ps. 82:2).

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

The NT does signal some new dimensions related to righteousness. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 57), Jesus extends the requirements of righteousness to conformity to his own teaching and directives, a shocking display of authority. In his mission to call sinners rather than the “righteous” (e.g., Mark 2:17), Jesus implicitly questions the righteousness of the “righteous.” In similar manner, personal righteousness in terms of a righteousness of one’s own is negative in the NT (Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:6; cf. Luke 18:9).

The NT continues the OT theme of righteousness as it relates to God himself. God is righteous (John 17:25; Rom. 3:5; 9:14; Heb. 6:10; cf. Matt. 6:33). His judgments are righteous (Rom. 2:5), and his commands and laws are righteous (Rom. 7:12; 8:4). God is a righteous judge (2Tim. 4:8). His saving activity is righteous; he does not compromise his own justice in justifying the ungodly (Rom. 3:24–26). The righteousness of God is contrasted with human unrighteousness and wickedness (Rom. 3:5; James 1:20). Since God reigns over creation in righteousness, human conduct should conform to that standard (e.g., Rom. 14:17). Jesus is also noted as righteous (Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1Pet. 3:18; 1John 2:1, 29). He fulfilled righteousness in the absolute sense of demonstrating complete conformity to the nature and will of God (e.g., 1Pet. 3:18). He also fulfilled God’s righteousness in the sense of his saving activity toward humans (e.g., 2Pet. 1:1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal fordetermining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of theritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed withdirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter”(Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses hasbeen washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll).In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, thisconcoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses againsther. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordealinvolving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “EnMishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “EnRogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) mayalso refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortlyafter crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah(“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and notpotable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood inthe water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25),the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in thedesert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in termsof bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness iseffected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood”(Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of aparticular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divinethreat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

Terminology

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

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

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

Typesof Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

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

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

TheLaw and the New Testament

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

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

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

The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. The earliest attestation of circumcision is on depictions of West Semitic Syrian warriors unearthed in Syria and Egypt and dating to the third millennium BC. In addition, an Egyptian stela describing a ceremony in which 120 were circumcised has been dated to the twenty-third century BC. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:25–26). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).

Simeon and Levi used circumcision as a ruse to obtain revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:13–31). Zipporah redeemed Moses by circumcising her son on their journey back to Egypt (Exod. 4:24–26). At Gilgal, Joshua circumcised the sons of the Israelites who had disbelieved that God could bring them into the Promised Land (Josh. 5:2–8). The sons had not been circumcised during the journey through the wilderness (5:7). Saul demanded a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins before David could marry his daughter Michal (1 Sam. 18:25). David doubled the bride-price by providing two hundred (18:27).

Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).

Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).

The rock dove (Heb. yonah; Gk. peristera) was domesticatedthroughout the ancient Near East and used for carrying messages longbefore Roman times. It breeds prolifically, and its homing instinctbrings it swiftly back to its dovecote (Isa. 60:8; Hos. 11:11) or thebuildings or crevices where it nests (Jer. 48:28). Israel also hasthree species of turtledove (Heb. tor; Gk. trygōn), one being asummer migrant (Song 2:12; Jer. 8:7).

InIsrael, the dove was considered clean for food and designated forsacrifice, often as a poor person’s substitute for a lamb (Gen.15:9; Lev. 1:14; 5:7, 11; 12:6, 8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29; Num. 6:10;Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 2:24; John 2:14, 16). The dove is firstmentioned in Scripture when Noah sends out a dove from the ark (Gen.8:8–12). In the NT, the dove is an image of purity (Matt.10:16) and also symbolizes the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10;Luke 3:22; John 1:32), but in the Song of Songs, where the beloved,and in particular the beloved’s eyes, are likened to doves(1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2, 12; 6:9), it may also connote fertility.

Thedove is also, however, mournful (Isa. 38:14; 59:11; Ezek. 7:16; Nah.2:7), vulnerable (Ps. 74:19), and easily deceived (Hos. 7:11). Whenfrightened, it takes flight to lonely places (Ps. 55:6; Isa. 60:8),which perhaps adds interest to the fact that Jonah’s nameliterally means “dove.”

The KJV uses “dragon” twenty-one times in the OTto translate the Hebrew word tannin, tannim. In Deut. 32:33 the termis used in parallel with peten (“adder” or “cobra”),indicating that it probably refers to a snake of some type. The termis rendered inconsistently by the KJV, so that elsewhere thetranslation is “whale” (Gen. 1:21; Job 7:12; Ezek.32:2–3) or “serpent” (Exod. 7:9–10, 12).There is also some confusion in the KJV of tannim with the plural ofthe noun tan, which means “jackal” (Job 30:29; Ps. 44:19;Isa. 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jer. 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:3; 51:37;Mic. 1:8; see also Lam. 4:3; Mal. 1:3).

Inmany passages the LXX uses the term drakōn, which again refersto a serpent. This term is used in the NT only in Revelation, where,as in the OT, the writer probably envisioned not the fire-breathingwinged monster familiar to most modern readers but rather somethingmore directly resembling a serpent (note Rev. 12:9, where the “greatdragon” is also described as the “ancient serpent”and identified as “the devil, or Satan”). Revelation 12:3elaborates by describing it as possessing “seven heads and tenhorns.” Hence, the dragon of Revelation is linked directly tothe serpent in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3), which is ultimatelysubject to defeat and eternal punishment (Rev. 20:7–10).

The law warns against those who claim to speak for God butwhose words are not from God. Such false prophets are exposed whentheir predictions go unfulfilled, but even a prophet who makes truepredictions is false if he or she encourages idolatry. False prophetsmust be put to death (Deut. 13:1–5; 18:20–22).

Duringthe monarchy, some false prophets blatantly promoted Baalism (1Kings18:19; Jer. 2:8; 23:13). Others seemed orthodox but, motivated bygreed (Jer. 6:13; 8:10; Mic. 3:5, 11; cf. Luke 6:26), actually saidwhatever people wanted to hear (1Kings 22:6; cf. 2Chron.18:5; 28; Isa. 30:10; Jer. 5:31; Ezek. 22:27–28). A frequentmark of these prophets was that they stressed God’sfaithfulness to promises of blessing while ignoring his faithfulnessto promises of judgment. According to them, Israel would never bedefeated, however much the people sinned (Jer. 6:14; 8:11; 23:17;Ezek. 13:10, 16; Mic. 2:6); the false prophets themselves set anexample of licentiousness (Isa. 28:7; Jer. 23:14–15).Ironically, the complacency that this engendered increased Israel’sdanger (Jer. 14:13–16; 23:19–22; 27:9–18; Lam.2:14; Ezek. 13:5).

Oftendirect confrontations took place between true and false prophets(e.g., 1Kings 18; Neh. 6:14; Jer. 20:1–6; 26:8–11;28–29; Mic. 2:6). The true prophets pleaded with Israel toreject false prophecy (Jer. 23:16; 29:8–9). They pronouncedjudgment on both the prophets and their followers (Isa. 9:14–15;Jer. 2:26; 4:9; 8:1; 13:13; 23:33–39; 50:36; Ezek. 13; Zeph.3:4; Zech. 13:2–6). False prophets would become blind to thetruth they denied and become unable to prophesy at all (Isa. 29:10;Ezek. 7:26; Mic. 3:6). Their false predictions would be frustrated(Isa. 44:25; Jer. 37:19), and in particular the exile that they saidwould never happen was now inevitable (Jer. 14:15–18).

Falseprophecy was as much a danger in the NT era as it was in the OT.Jesus warned that “wolves in sheep’s clothing”would continue to lead many astray. Some would either promote theworship of false messiahs or even pretend to be the Messiah (Matt.24:23–24; Mark 13:21–22), but, as ever, they could beidentified by their “fruit” (Matt. 7:15–23; 24:11).

Paulsaid that any so-called prophet who opposed his own teaching, or whotaught error while claiming that the teaching came from Paul himself,was false (1Cor. 14:37; 2Thess. 2:2; cf. 2Cor.11:4; Gal. 1:8). Luke called Elymas the sorcerer, who opposed Paul, afalse prophet (Acts 13:6–12). More generally, Peter saw allheretical teachers as direct successors of the false prophets of theOT, denying the Lord and exploiting the people for gain (2Pet.2:1). They replicate the error of Balaam (2Pet. 2:15–16).For John, the particular mark of the false prophet was the denialthat Jesus is the Christ (1John 4:1–3). The third figurein the bestial false trinity in John’s Revelation is called“the false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10) andentices men and women to worship the dragon rather than Jesus.

The foreskin (prepuce) is removed from the male reproductiveorgan, usually of infants (Gen. 21:4; Lev. 12:3), in a ceremonialoperation, circumcision. Other ancient cultures that practiced thisrite include Egypt, Judah, Edom, Ammon, and Moab (Jer. 9:25–26).In similar fashion, Egyptian priests slit the foreskin and let ithang free.

Archaeologyshows that Syrian warriors practiced circumcision around 3000 BC, butcircumcision became central to Jewish faith. The rite lent itself tothe powerful metaphor of “heart circumcision,” whichdesignates a heart that is committed rather than stubborn (Deut.10:16; cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4). However, the avoidanceof circumcision in Hellenistic culture led some Jews to “hide”their circumcision through epispasm, an operation that restored theforeskin to its uncircumcised form (1Macc. 1:15; 1Cor.7:18; Josephus, Ant. 12.237–41). See also Circumcision.

The southern section of the Transjordan, with the JordanRiver to the west, Bashan to the north, Ammon to the east, and Moabto the south. The Jabbok River ran across it from east to west, and“Gilead” could be used either more widely to describe thewhole area or more narrowly to describe the land either south ornorth of the Jabbok. It was a high, fertile region, famed for itshealing balm and spices (Gen. 37:25; Jer. 8:22; 46:11) as well as itspastures and livestock (Num. 32:1; 1Chron. 5:9; Song 4:1; 6:5).

Jacobnamed Gilead after the heap of stones that witnessed his covenantwith Laban (Gen. 31:21–55). “Gilead” also became apersonal and clan name (Num. 26:29–30; 27:1) when, followingthe Israelites’ defeat of Sihon the Amorite on their way toCanaan (Deut. 2:36; Josh. 12:1–3), the region was allotted toReuben, Gad, and part of Manasseh (Num. 36:1; Deut. 3:10–15).

Israeldrew some of its national leaders from Gilead (Judg. 10:3; 11:1) anddefended it keenly against Gentile enemies (1Sam. 11). However,there was often tension between the tribes east and west of theJordan (Josh. 22:10–34; Judg. 5:17; 12:1–7). When Davidfled from Absalom (2Sam. 17:22), crossing into the Transjordanwas viewed as having left the land (2Sam. 17:22; 19:9).Returning across the river was like a reenactment of the conquest(2Sam. 19:15). There is similar symbolism in the Jordancrossings made by Elijah, a prophet from Gilead, and his successor,Elisha (1Kings 17:3; 2Kings 2:8,14).

Afterthe division of the kingdom, Israel’s hold on the Transjordanbecame increasingly tenuous. Two alliances between Israel and Judahfailed to win Ramoth Gilead back from the Arameans (1Kings 22;2Kings 8:28–29), and Hazael later conquered the entireregion (2Kings 10:32–33). After a brief respite underJehoash (2Kings 13:25), Pekah lost Gilead toTiglath-pileserIII of Assyria (15:29).

Nevertheless,Gilead remained a prized possession of Yahweh (Pss. 60:7; 108:8; Jer.22:6). Hosea may have condemned Gilead’s sinfulness (Hos. 6:8;12:11), but the prophets also looked forward to a day when Gilead’sconquerors would be punished (Amos 1:3, 13) and its richness would berestored to Israel (Jer. 50:19; Obad. 1:19; Mic. 7:14; Zech. 10:10).

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

The harvest was a major event on the yearly calendar ofIsrael’s agrarian society (Lev. 25:11; Judg. 15:1; Ruth 1:22;2Sam. 21:9–10). Life was dependent on the harvest. As aresult, God set certain rules with respect to the harvest to help theIsraelites keep proper priorities. Every seven years and everyfiftieth year, the people were to give the land a rest (Exod. 23:10;Lev. 25:20–22). The people were to rest on the Sabbath, evenduring the harvesttime (Exod. 34:21). Some portions of crops were tobe left in the field so that the poor might have food (Lev. 19:9;23:22; Deut. 24:21). The people were to acknowledge God as the sourceof the harvest by offering the first of the produce (Lev. 23:10).Celebrating the harvest was commanded (Exod. 23:16; Deut. 16:15; Isa.9:3). Planning for the harvest was a mark of wisdom (Prov. 6:8; 10:5;20:4). Even as a good harvest was the blessing of God (Ps. 67:6; Isa.62:9), so a bad harvest was a curse from God and the plight of a fool(1Sam. 12:17; Job 5:5; Prov. 26:1; Isa. 18:4–5; Jer.8:13, 20; Joel 3:12; Mic. 6:15). Failure to acknowledge God for theharvest was a sin (Jer. 5:24).

Theharvest is often used in Scripture as an analogy. The prophets talkabout the negative harvest of idolatry (Isa. 17:11). Israel is calledthe firstfruits of God’s harvest (Jer. 2:3). Hosea uses theidea of harvest to indicate that God’s people have a future(Hos. 6:11). In the Gospels, the harvest is used as an analogy forthose needing to hear the good news (Matt. 9:37–38), for theend times (Matt. 13:24–30; Rev. 14:15), and for a lesson aboutunfaithful leadership (Matt. 21:33–46; 25:24). In the remainderof the NT, the harvest analogy usually refers to Christian growth andsalvation (Rom. 1:13; 1Cor. 9:10–11; 2Cor. 9:10;Gal. 6:9; Heb. 12:11; James 3:18).

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the size of a large dog, the wolflike golden jackal(Canis aureus) is a scavenging predator native to Israel, stillwidely found there. Jackals are primarily but not exclusivelycarnivorous. They consume carrion, dig dens, are aggressive, and havea distinctive howl (Mic. 1:8). Jackals prowl in packs, favoring dry,barren terrain. They are strongly associated with ruins in the OT(Isa. 13:22; 34:13; Jer. 9:11). The NT does not specifically refer tojackals.

Inthe OT, the English translation “jackal” generallyrepresents one of two Hebrew words: tan is consistently translated“jackal,” while shu’al is usually translated “fox”but can also mean “jackal.” Instances of the latterinclude Ps. 63:10; Lam. 5:18; Ezek. 13:4. Jackals and foxes canoccupy the same general area, but foxes are loners and prefer awooded habitat. Thus, it has been argued that the foxes of Judg.15:4–5 are better understood to have been jackals.

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

Mishpatand Tsedaqah

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

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

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

Godas the Source and Model of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Terminology

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

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

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

Typesof Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

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

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

TheLaw and the New Testament

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

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

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

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

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

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

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

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

The custom of cutting the foreskin of the male genitalia as a religious rite. The earliest attestation of circumcision is on depictions of West Semitic Syrian warriors unearthed in Syria and Egypt and dating to the third millennium BC. In addition, an Egyptian stela describing a ceremony in which 120 were circumcised has been dated to the twenty-third century BC. Egyptians practiced circumcision, as did the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, and nomadic Arabians (Jer. 9:25–26). Philistines, Assyrians, and Gentiles in general were uncircumcised (Judg. 14:3; Ezek. 32:17–32; Eph. 2:11).

Circumcision is first mentioned in the Bible as a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Gen. 17:10). God commanded that every male be circumcised at eight days old (Gen. 17:12; cf. 21:4; Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59; 2:21). Circumcision was required for a male to participate in the Passover (Exod. 12:48) or worship in the temple (Ezek. 44:9; cf. Acts 21:28–29).

Simeon and Levi used circumcision as a ruse to obtain revenge for the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:13–31). Zipporah redeemed Moses by circumcising her son on their journey back to Egypt (Exod. 4:24–26). At Gilgal, Joshua circumcised the sons of the Israelites who had disbelieved that God could bring them into the Promised Land (Josh. 5:2–8). The sons had not been circumcised during the journey through the wilderness (5:7). Saul demanded a dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins before David could marry his daughter Michal (1 Sam. 18:25). David doubled the bride-price by providing two hundred (18:27).

Metaphorically, circumcision goes beyond the physical sign (Rom. 2:28). Ultimately, the enemies of God, whether circumcised or not, will be slain and laid in the grave with the uncircumcised (Ezek. 32:32). Physical circumcision is of no avail if the heart remains “uncircumcised” (Jer. 9:25–26; cf. Rom. 2:25). Circumcision of the heart is accomplished when one loves God completely (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Rom. 2:29), but uncircumcised ears are disobedient (Acts 7:51). The circumcision accomplished by Christ occurs when the sinful nature is rejected (Col. 2:11). In him neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value; what counts “is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal. 5:6).

Controversy began in the NT church over whether Gentile believers should be circumcised (Acts 15:1–12). Evidently, a group existed that demanded circumcision (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:10). Paul argued that circumcision was not essential to Christian faith and fellowship (Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:11).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal fordetermining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of theritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed withdirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter”(Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses hasbeen washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll).In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, thisconcoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses againsther. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordealinvolving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “EnMishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “EnRogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) mayalso refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortlyafter crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah(“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and notpotable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood inthe water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25),the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in thedesert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in termsof bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness iseffected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood”(Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of aparticular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divinethreat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.

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

Geography

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

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

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

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

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

Wildernessin the Bible

Wildernessis commonly mentioned in the Bible, and although it certainly canhave neutral connotations (i.e., simply describing a location), theuninhabited places often entail both positive (e.g., as a place ofsolitude) and negative (e.g., as a place of wrath) connotations, bothin their actual geological properties and as metaphors. The veryrugged and uninhabited nature of the wilderness easily lent itself tobeing a place of death (e.g., Deut. 8:15; Ps. 107:4–5; Jer.2:6). It was also a place associated with Israel’s rebellionsand struggles with other nations. Upon leaving Egypt, Israel spentforty years wandering the wilderness before entering Canaan,encountering numerous military conflicts along the way. Thisforty-year period was occasioned by a mass rebellion (Num. 14), hencecasting a necessarily dark cloud over that entire period, and nodoubt firming up subsequent negative connotations of “wilderness.”Similarly, “wilderness” connotes notions of exile fromIsrael, as seen in the ritual of the scapegoat (lit., “goat ofremoval” [see Lev. 16]). On the Day of Atonement, one goat wassacrificed to atone for the people’s sin, and another was sentoff, likewise to atone for sin. The scapegoat was released into thedesert, where it would encounter certain death, either by succumbingto the climate or through wild animals.

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

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

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

In biblical times, windows usually were small and few, forthe purpose of admitting light or air. Windows helped regulatetemperatures inside a house. Some, however, were large enough topermit an intruder (Joel 2:9; cf. Jer. 9:21) or a fugitive (Josh.2:15; 1Sam. 19:12; 2Cor. 11:33) to go through.

Windowsof “recessed frames” in Solomon’s temple (1Kings6:4 NRSV), the numerous windows in Ezekiel’s eschatologicaltemple (Ezek. 40:16, 22, 25, 29; 41:16), and the elaborately paneledwindows in Jehoiakim’s house (Jer. 22:14) contrast thesimplicity of general window design.

Symbolically,“windows of/in heaven” depict wide openings through whichblessings or judgment flow to earth (Gen. 7:11; 8:2; 2Kings7:2, 19; Isa. 24:18 KJV [NIV: “floodgates of the heavens”];cf. Mal. 3:10).

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, orinterment.

Burialrites.Genesisin particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and wasgathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s]fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10).In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering”does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between hisdeath and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf.Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers tojoining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communalnotions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial(similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13];“gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

InJacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and thenwas “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), richimagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1).This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in acollective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf.Jer. 25:33).

Inthe genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formulais used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors andwas buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a placesuch as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron.16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order todescribe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogsconsumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacoband Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalmingpreserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids andwrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usuallyrequired immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9,22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, theinclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, andjewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s statusand needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practicesof mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos6:6–7).

Inthe NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific andpurification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench(mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered inwrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respectrequired demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specificlocations.Inthe OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs,or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for theirposterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In aprocess known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to arepository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse(cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave ofMachpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” maybe a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound ofstones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves ofothers (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

IronAge I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories(Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32).Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs ofkings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden orSamaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was foundalong the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Suchtombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed asmore recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. Thepoor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenisticperiod (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a slopingentry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often containedperpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs werecommon along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, andLachish.

Inthe intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, werebuilt above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb insouthwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a centralchamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed astrategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet indiameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used,and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem.Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after thecorpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, orinterment.

Burialrites.Genesisin particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and wasgathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s]fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10).In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering”does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between hisdeath and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf.Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers tojoining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communalnotions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial(similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13];“gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

InJacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and thenwas “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), richimagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1).This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in acollective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf.Jer. 25:33).

Inthe genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formulais used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors andwas buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a placesuch as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron.16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order todescribe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogsconsumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacoband Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalmingpreserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids andwrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usuallyrequired immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9,22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, theinclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, andjewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s statusand needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practicesof mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos6:6–7).

Inthe NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific andpurification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench(mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered inwrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respectrequired demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specificlocations.Inthe OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs,or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for theirposterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In aprocess known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to arepository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse(cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave ofMachpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” maybe a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound ofstones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves ofothers (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

IronAge I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories(Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32).Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs ofkings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden orSamaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was foundalong the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Suchtombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed asmore recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. Thepoor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenisticperiod (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a slopingentry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often containedperpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs werecommon along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, andLachish.

Inthe intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, werebuilt above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb insouthwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a centralchamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed astrategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet indiameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used,and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem.Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after thecorpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Burial can refer to the ritual, body preparation, orinterment.

Burialrites.Genesisin particular uses some formulaic phrases: “died and wasgathered to his people” and “rest with [one’s]fathers/ancestors” (25:8; 35:29; 47:30; 49:33; cf. Job 14:10).In Abraham’s death (Gen. 25:8), this “gathering”does not refer to his actual burial, since it occurs between hisdeath and burial; nor was Abraham ever buried with his ancestors (cf.Num. 20:26 [Aaron]; Deut. 32:50 [Moses]). This idiom refers tojoining one’s ancestors in the realm of the dead. With communalnotions, the phrase also refers to elements of family burial(similarly, “gathered to your people” [Num. 27:13];“gathered to their ancestors” [Judg. 2:10]).

InJacob’s obituary he “gathered up” his feet and thenwas “gathered” to his people (Gen. 49:33 KJV), richimagery because he had “gathered” his sons (cf. 49:1).This expression is also used of depositing the human remains in acollective family burial site (Judg. 2:10; 2 Kings 22:20; cf.Jer. 25:33).

Inthe genealogically sensitive books of Kings and Chronicles a formulais used for the kings: “X rested with his ancestors andwas buried in Y.” Here, “Y” can denote a placesuch as the City of David (1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; 14:31; 2 Chron.16:13–14). Authors depart from this formula in order todescribe a person’s desecration, such as Jezebel; the dogsconsumed her except for her skull, hands, and feet (2 Kings9:37; cf. 1 Kings 21:23–24).

Jacoband Joseph receive specialized Egyptian embalming. Embalmingpreserved a more holistic persona through use of special fluids andwrappings for seventy days (Gen. 50:2–3, 26). Death usuallyrequired immediate burial, even for criminals (Deut. 21:1–9,22–23; 1 Kings 13:24–30). Outside Israel, theinclusion of grave utensils (e.g., juglets, cooking pots, bowls, andjewelry) with the deceased was indicative of a person’s statusand needs in the afterlife. The OT prophets forbade certain practicesof mourning such as self-mutilation (Lev. 21:1–6; cf. Amos6:6–7).

Inthe NT, burial could include treatment with spices for odorific andpurification reasons (Luke 23:56; John 19:40). Placed on a bench(mishkab, “resting place”), the body was covered inwrappings and a special facecloth (John 11:44). Familial respectrequired demonstration of grief with laments (Acts 8:2; cf. 1 Kings13:29–30; Jer. 9:17–22).

Specificlocations.Inthe OT, burial occurred in cemeteries, shaft tombs, rock-hewn tombs,or natural caves. The wealthy procured burial sites for theirposterity (Gen. 23:3–20). Middle and Late Bronze Age (2200–1200BC) examples have been excavated at Jericho, Gibeon, and Hazor. In aprocess known as secondary burial, older remains were moved to arepository in the rear of the cave to clear room for a new corpse(cf. Matt. 8:21–22). Only Rachel was not buried in the cave ofMachpelah (Gen. 35:19–20). Her “stone pillar” maybe a rock cairn, in which the body is interred beneath a mound ofstones. Well-known landmarks, such as trees, identified the graves ofothers (Gen. 35:8 [Deborah]; 1 Sam. 31:11–13 [Saul]).

IronAge I sites (1200–1000 BC) could mark tribal territories(Judg. 8:32), like Joseph’s bones at Shechem (Josh. 24:32).Iron Age II sites (1000–586 BC) show the royal tombs ofkings in their capitals or ancestral areas, be it a special garden orSamaria (2 Kings 21:18, 26; 13:13). An inscription was foundalong the Kidron naming the owner, Shebna (Isa. 22:15–16). Suchtombs often included a charnel pit. Here, older bones were placed asmore recent corpses were laid out on the bench above the pit. Thepoor usually were consigned to public cemeteries. The Hellenisticperiod (332–53 BC) saw the use of shaft tombs. With a slopingentry into a burial chamber, a shaft tomb often containedperpendicular niches (kokhim) for individual bodies. These tombs werecommon along the coastal plain and sites such as Dor, Gezer, andLachish.

Inthe intertestamental period, elaborate structures, arcosolia, werebuilt above or adjacent to the entry, such as Jason’s tomb insouthwestern Jerusalem. The loculus was a second type with a centralchamber and three sprawling kokhim. The Herodian period employed astrategic entrance guarded with a rolling stone four to five feet indiameter, like that used for Jesus. During the Roman period (37 BC–AD367), stone sarcophagi (lit., “flesh eaters”) were used,and such have been excavated at Beth She’arim and Jerusalem.Later, bones were placed in ossuaries (boxes for bones) after thecorpse had decayed in the burial niche.

Cosmetics were well known to the ancient Near Eastern world,as both men and women used various substances to care for their skin,make themselves more attractive, and cover up odor. The most commonforms of cosmetics were ointments or oils, though many types ofapplicators and containers have been found in the archaeologicalremnants of the ancient societies.

Thesources of the various ointments and pigments ranged from the use ofminerals to the manipulation of by-products from agricultural wares.Different clays rich in iron oxide could be manipulated through theapplication of heat or water to produce colors, including yellow,red, brown, and purple. The clay was mined and then washed, dried,and heated to enhance the color. Other minerals that provided colorincluded lead carbonate (white), malachite (green), lead sulphate(black), and manganese (shades of violet). Agricultural products suchas seeds, olives, nuts, gourds, trees, and plant leaves provided asource for oils and ointments, as did animal and fish fats.Fragrances were collected from flowers, herbs, seeds, and leaves.

Thecontainers for the various substances were as varied as the essencesthemselves. Powder perfumes were kept in boxes, and the liquid formswere kept in alabaster jars or glass bottles. Small bowls with widerims or flat palettes made of clay or stone were used for pigments.Flasks could be made from ivory, bronze, wood, or bone. Applicatorsused these same items, as well as hair from various animals.

Cosmeticsalso played an important role in perceptions of wealth because manyof them had to be imported from foreign lands. At times perfumes andcosmetics rivaled even silver and gold in value. The kings of Judahkept them in their treasure houses (2 Kings 20:13), and part ofthe tribute from the Queen of Sheba to Solomon included spicesprobably intended to be used for cosmetic purposes (1 Kings10:2, 10). The cosmetics mentioned in the Bible and the instrumentsrelated to them were imported from Syria, Arabia, Egypt, Africa,Mesopotamia, and farther east into Persia.

Ointmentsserved a dual purpose: protecting the skin in the harsh aridconditions of the Near East and providing hygiene. Part of Naomi’sinstructions to Ruth as she prepared to go and meet Boaz was to puton oil (Ruth 3:3), and Esther reports that application of such oilswas part of the beauty treatments that the king’s haremreceived (Esther 2:12). Apparently because of the refreshment that itprovided (Prov. 27:9), in NT times application of ointment and oilswas considered a sign of hospitality (Luke 7:37–50).

Althoughpainting one’s eyes could be viewed as a sign of a woman withlow morals (Ezek. 23:40), the purpose of such paints was moregenerally beautification (Jer. 4:30), and other ancient texts suggestthat the practice had the added feature of discouraging flies fromlanding around moist areas of the eyes. Imagery from antiquityindicates the use of black, green, yellow, and red pigments to adornthe eyes.

Theclose relationship between the activities of anointing for purposesof hygiene and beauty and anointing for service should not be missed.Being sanctified to God often carried with it the imagery of being apleasing aroma. Furthermore, the act of anointing was seen to have acleansing purpose as well (Matt. 6:17). Perfumes played a role inworship (Exod. 30:34–38; Ps. 141:2; Isa. 60:6), and the imageryof cosmetics was sometimes used as a representation of God’sforgiveness and grace (Jer. 8:22).

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to properconduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of worldhe created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. Italso contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both ascreatures of this God and, in some instances, as the uniquebeneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Biblesets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasonsthat justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture werenot moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail;nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God andSavior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for everygood work” (2Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore,is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitivestatement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

TheSources of Moral Knowledge

Scriptureidentifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beingshave the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom.2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrongthat acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. Thefall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and ourconsciences can become “seared” through chronicdisobedience and doctrinal treason (1Tim. 4:2). We do not,therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, theapostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’slaw—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—toeliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No onewill be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who youwere and no hint of what you expected ofme.”

Second,as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this onebeing fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices.Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offersa high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its bestmoments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the churchmust do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (atleast, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular contentand why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvementproject. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer everyethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologiesand cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the firstcentury or any previous age. But the church can be assured that afaithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace ofGod, please him even today, whatever our particular circ*mstances.

TheLogic of Biblical Morality

Themoral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consistingof duties and final objectives. When we obey God’scommandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives increating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality iscomplete and informative compared to systems derived from otherworldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we mustdo from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripturebecause its theological statements are always practically applied andnever presented with merely theoretical interest.

Theobjectives of biblical morality.The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes:the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, twoobjectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipatedside effect of the other.

Toglorify God.The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He ismaximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom,power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite ofthat fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sinsso that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects,God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No oneever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the finalobjective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—toknow him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actionsmust testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging othersto do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what heabhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to livein unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior definewhat it means to glorify God.

Tobe happy in God’s presence.The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy inways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, theChristian system of ethics differs from moral theories that eitherreject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or elsereduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinnersneed our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainlydesires our happiness and often presents himself as the final sourceof it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency followsfrom the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating allthings. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; andbecause he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless ratherthan selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and thevery best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results fromour glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then,biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make humanhappiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable.God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringinghim glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory.The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church whathappiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials ofthis life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1Cor.2:9; Heb. 12:2).

Themeans of biblical morality.Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—howto reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and howto value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, severalmajor themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appearbelow, allowing some overlap between them.

Trustingin God’s promises.Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he haspromised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and notallow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, weproclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him.Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OThistory with an application to the present Christian life. The gospelis a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection ofChrist; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to ouraccount. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandmentsbecause we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it(so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with itscorresponding negative results).

Keepingholiness and impurity separated.God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of theuniverse. All things depend on him for their existence, and he isextreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love.Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,”as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He standsalone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannotentail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this dutyis to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunningall forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancientIsraelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence andgave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa.6:1–5; cf. 1Pet. 1:15–16).

InScripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or theholy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimespedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes oneintrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone tohave other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil tolie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if itexpresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide.But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases,just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by Godfor instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evilas such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’spresence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. Itis not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT andpermitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wearblended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed overin the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules ofthis kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving anobjective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh oneveryday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of Godupon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in anycase, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT aswell, where it informs the question “What must I do to besaved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

ImitatingGod/Christ.The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation ofGod and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility,and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior towardpeople becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, forexample, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this:that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, whoexercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in theseI delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear,as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they willbe called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one whofollows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, sothat we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven”(Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he isperfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash oneanother’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15).They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The newcommandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example,puts on display his character and their own relationship to him(13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,”just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn inPhil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humilitythat surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set beforehim endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in hisglory.

Livingout our unique identity.Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are,because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, andlying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, mostof the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that itoften contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (ordoing X is urgent for you), either (a)because you belong to Godin a special way or (b)because he has done this special thingfor you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT,the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however,the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moralexhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, arecognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

Thelinkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior,is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text movesfrom prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out ofEgypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shallhave no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut.5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OTas motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X,for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, forI am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In somecases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in,“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord yourGod has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth tobe his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again,“You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cutyourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you area people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on theface of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasuredpossession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers tothe people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “WhenIsrael was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.But the more they were called, the more they went away from me”(Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’sexperience of God’s particular love.

Inthe NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appearsoften, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Pauland Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin mustresist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the HolySpirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him andshun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become anunleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of theold yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1Cor. 5).The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one newhumanity (1Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by theSpirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tellshis readers to love one another because they have been “bornagain” of “imperishable seed” (1Pet.1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royalpriesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, theymust proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1Pet.2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and weare the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In allthese cases, the target audience has a special relationship to Godthat imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that theyreflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals thathe has set before them.

Livingin unity with one another.The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all otherrelationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve wouldlive in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brotherAbel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, Godscatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9;1Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’speople live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OTteaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands betweenYahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite andanother. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinishedbusiness of the OT story.

TheNT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task)of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live inunity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed,people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind ofpeople, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,”so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle tothe Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that hisexhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, ratherthan the individual. Christians must display the social virtues oflove and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both ofwhich separate believer from believer and each from the head of thechurch, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case forChristian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps,in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts adivisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2Corinthiansis arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “messageof the cross” (1Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church intocults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us awayfrom one another and into competition for influence, wealth, andpublic honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force iscentripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leadingeach person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christmight be built up in him.

The southern section of the Transjordan, with the JordanRiver to the west, Bashan to the north, Ammon to the east, and Moabto the south. The Jabbok River ran across it from east to west, and“Gilead” could be used either more widely to describe thewhole area or more narrowly to describe the land either south ornorth of the Jabbok. It was a high, fertile region, famed for itshealing balm and spices (Gen. 37:25; Jer. 8:22; 46:11) as well as itspastures and livestock (Num. 32:1; 1Chron. 5:9; Song 4:1; 6:5).

Jacobnamed Gilead after the heap of stones that witnessed his covenantwith Laban (Gen. 31:21–55). “Gilead” also became apersonal and clan name (Num. 26:29–30; 27:1) when, followingthe Israelites’ defeat of Sihon the Amorite on their way toCanaan (Deut. 2:36; Josh. 12:1–3), the region was allotted toReuben, Gad, and part of Manasseh (Num. 36:1; Deut. 3:10–15).

Israeldrew some of its national leaders from Gilead (Judg. 10:3; 11:1) anddefended it keenly against Gentile enemies (1Sam. 11). However,there was often tension between the tribes east and west of theJordan (Josh. 22:10–34; Judg. 5:17; 12:1–7). When Davidfled from Absalom (2Sam. 17:22), crossing into the Transjordanwas viewed as having left the land (2Sam. 17:22; 19:9).Returning across the river was like a reenactment of the conquest(2Sam. 19:15). There is similar symbolism in the Jordancrossings made by Elijah, a prophet from Gilead, and his successor,Elisha (1Kings 17:3; 2Kings 2:8,14).

Afterthe division of the kingdom, Israel’s hold on the Transjordanbecame increasingly tenuous. Two alliances between Israel and Judahfailed to win Ramoth Gilead back from the Arameans (1Kings 22;2Kings 8:28–29), and Hazael later conquered the entireregion (2Kings 10:32–33). After a brief respite underJehoash (2Kings 13:25), Pekah lost Gilead toTiglath-pileserIII of Assyria (15:29).

Nevertheless,Gilead remained a prized possession of Yahweh (Pss. 60:7; 108:8; Jer.22:6). Hosea may have condemned Gilead’s sinfulness (Hos. 6:8;12:11), but the prophets also looked forward to a day when Gilead’sconquerors would be punished (Amos 1:3, 13) and its richness would berestored to Israel (Jer. 50:19; Obad. 1:19; Mic. 7:14; Zech. 10:10).

Terminology

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

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

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

Typesof Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torahin Wisdom Literature and in the Prophets

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

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

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

BiblicalLaw and Ancient Near Eastern Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheCharacter of Biblical Law

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

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

TheLaw and the New Testament

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

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

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

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

Theexpressions of mourning in the Bible include weeping (Gen. 23:2),wailing (Esther 4:3; Isa. 15:3; Mark 5:38), tearing clothes andwearing sackcloth (Gen. 37:34; 2Sam. 3:31), lying on the ground(2Sam. 13:31), putting dust and ashes on the head or sitting ondust and ashes (Ezek. 27:30), fasting (2Sam. 3:35; 12:16),singing songs of lament (2Sam. 1:17–27; 3:32–35),pulling hair out of one’s beard (Ezra 9:3), cutting the hair(Jer. 7:29), uncovering the head (Lev. 10:6), removing sandals (Ezek.24:17, 23), covering the lips or mouth (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7),and employing professional mourners (Jer. 9:17; Matt. 9:23; Mark5:38). Some pagan mourning practices were prohibited, such asslashing the body, cutting patterns into the body (tattooing?), andthe somewhat obscure act of making the forehead bald (Lev. 19:28;Deut. 14:1; cf. 1Kings 18:28).

Thus,grief and mourning were anything but stoic and brief. Grief wasexpressed both physically and vocally, often loudly, with expressionsranging from inarticulate groaning to poetic compositions in song.Although women may have been prominent among professional mourners,expressing grief was not considered unmasculine. Several times Davidwas a leader in expressing grief. That the expression of grief shouldbe brief, relatively dispassionate, and primarily characteristic ofwomen was a Greek development that entered the church through peoplesuch as Augustine, who, for example, felt grieved that he had verybriefly grieved the loss of his mother.

Paul’sadmonition that believers should not grieve as do those who have nohope (1Thess. 4:13) should not be construed as a dictum that itis wrong to grieve. The thought of the resurrection is a comfort in,not a replacement for, grief. Even Jesus wept at the death ofLazarus, knowing full well that he would soon resurrect him (John11:25, 35, 40). Further, saints who have died and gone to heavenlament (Rev. 6:10). Grief is restricted for active-duty priests andonce for Ezekiel, but these are clearly special circ*mstances andillustrate the normalcy of giving expression to grief. Ezekiel was tomoan with a groaning for the dead (often misread as groaningsilently) when his wife died, but he was not to engage in anymourning rites (Ezek. 24:15–27). This illustrated to Judah thecirc*mstances that they would face, without opportunity to mournproperly for their dead. Ezekiel 8:14 indicts the women of Jerusalemfor “mourning for Tammuz,” a pagan ritual involving thecycle of life, death, and rebirth of the Babylonian god Dumuzi.

Songsof lament are common in the OT. David composed a song of lamenthonoring the deaths of Saul and Jonathan (2Sam. 1:17–27).After Joab’s unauthorized killing of Abner, David also sang alament for Abner and required Joab to participate in mourning rituals(3:31–37). David also mourned his own sons: the unnamed son ofBathsheba (12:16–18), Amnon (13:30–33), and Absalom(18:33–19:4). In the case of Bathsheba’s son, Davidmourned in advance of the boy’s death, which had beenprophetically proclaimed through Nathan. As the consequences of hissins continued, he progressively became undone in the mourning of hisother sons. Also, funeral songs are used as the form of someprophetic material (Ezek. 19:1–14; 26:17–18; 27:2–9,25–36; cf. Jer. 22:18; Amos 5:16). Not all laments are funeralsongs perse. Compare also the book of Lamentations and thepsalms of lament, also known as complaint psalms.

Expressionsof grief and mourning were called for as part of repentance,combining both fear of punishment and depth of sorrow over sin(2Chron. 34:19; Isa. 15:3; Joel 1:13).

A translation of various words in the Bible that describe theuse of oil or other semisolid salves that are applied to the body andspecifically not used for cooking. The NIV translators tend to preferthe words “oil,” “balm,” or “perfume”rather than “ointment,” but all these words can be usedto describe the same substance.

Varietiesand Value

Almostall the ointments prepared and used in the ancient Near East had anolive oil base. Exceptions to an olive oil base include oils madefrom a myrrh plant, cinnamon, or aloe. Often an olive oil base, whichcould be used by itself, was mixed by a perfumer with other spices,herbs, aromatic or medicinal plants, and/or tree products (Exod.30:23–25). Occasionally, animals, especially sea animals, mightalso be used to create ointments. The actual process followed formaking ointments is not completely known, although boiling often waspart of the process of scent extraction (Job 41:31). Usually theperfume or ointment was carefully stored in either alabaster or leadand placed in a cool place to preserve its aromatic and medicinalqualities. The job of perfuming was, at times, considered woman’swork, as is the case when Samuel told the Israelites not to ask for aking (1Sam. 8:13). However, the Bible records at least one maleperfumer, Hananiah, who helped Nehemiah repair part of Jerusalem’swall (Neh. 3:8).

Ointmentsoften were used as a trading commodity and generally were consideredvery valuable and a special luxury item (Song 3:6–7), theexception, perhaps, being plain olive oil. The traders who boughtJoseph before taking him to Egypt were trading, among other things,ointments and perfume (Gen. 37:25). King Hezekiah included ointmentsin his display to the envoys from Babylon when they came to see hiswealth (Isa. 39:2). The prophet Amos equated the use of oil (NIV:“lotions”) to being wealthy (Amos 6:6). Ecclesiastes 7:1regards ointment as something to be treasured. When Mary anointedJesus’ feet with ointment, Judas Iscariot complained about themoney being wasted with this action (John 12:3–6). In Mark’sGospel a similar anointing event is recorded, with the vial ofperfume valued at over three hundred denarii (Mark 14:3–5). Asingle denarius was roughly the equivalent of a day’s wages.Thus, the NIV translates the price as being the equivalent to ayear’s pay.

Uses

Therewere numerous uses for ointment in the ancient Near East, includingmedicinal, cosmetic, religious, and burial preparation.

Probablythe most common use for ointment was medicinal. Medicinal ointmentswere used to treat many ailments, including creating a barrier toprotect wounds from infection and relieving minor skin irritations(see Isa. 1:6). The prophet Jeremiah metaphorically says that therewill be no healing balm of Gilead for the people of Jerusalem afterGod has his way with them (Jer. 8:22; 46:11). Although it has notbeen confirmed in ancient documents or the archaeological record, thecity of Gilead apparently was noted for its industry of makinghealing ointments.

Anothercommon use for ointment was cosmetic. Esther, for example, was put ona regimen of ointment treatments (oil of myrrh) for six months andthen perfume treatments for another six months (Esther 2:12). Ruthused perfume or ointment to prepare herself to see Boaz (Ruth 3:3).The use of ointment was not limited to women; men used it as well.For example, after David had finished mourning for his son, he put onointment and resumed normal life (2Sam. 12:20). In Eccles. 9:8the writer advises, as part of enjoying life, “Always anointyour head with oil.”

Ointmentsalso had many different uses within the religious life of theIsraelites. For example, ointments had a special role in tabernacleworship. Exodus details the instructions for making the ointment tobe used in consecration ceremonies when anointing the high priestsand the furniture of the tabernacle (and later the temple). Thisointment included 500 shekels of myrrh, 250 shekels of cinnamon, 250shekels of cane, 500 shekels of cassia, and a hin of olive oil (Exod.30:22–25). A shekel equaled somewhere between nine and sixteenounces; thus 500 shekels was approximately 500 pounds. A hin waslikely the equivalent of about one liquid gallon. The exact processfor mixing the ingredients together is not given, but it must havefollowed a fairly standard method of preparation for it not to bedetailed in the text. Interestingly, the perfumer also mixed the dryincense used in the tabernacle. Furthermore, the recipes for thesespecial ointments were set aside and prohibited for general use bythe population.

Throughoutthe book of Leviticus, the high priest is referred to as the“anointed priest,” which denotes the fact that the sacredointment had been put on him and consecrated him for service to God(Lev. 4:16; 6:22; 8:12). The Hebrew term meshiakh (“messiah”)also indicates someone who has been anointed. This term, generallyapplied to kings, was not limited to Jewish kings; for example,Cyrus, king of the Medes and Persians, was considered anointed (Isa.45:1). Prophets too were considered anointed by God (Ps. 105:15).

Ointmentswere also used in the preparation of a corpse for burial. Given thehumid conditions of Palestine and the lack of sophisticated embalmingmethods, it was necessary to add ointments to the body in preparationfor burial. This was also done to honor the deceased. For example,after Jesus died, the women who first discovered his resurrection hadcome to anoint his body with spices and ointment (Mark 16:1).

Inthe NT, anointing with oil took on symbolic meaning. The oil came torepresent the Holy Spirit or the presence of God. For example, inActs 10:38 it is said that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth withthe Holy Spirit” (cf. 4:27). James prescribes that churchelders anoint the sick with oil when praying over them (James 5:14).

Divine pronouncements given to humankind that are eitherunsolicited (Isa. 7:3–9; Hag. 1:2–11; Zech. 12:1) or aresponse to an inquiry (2Kings 8:8). It was common practicethroughout the ancient Near East to seek pronouncements from deitiesand to identify holy sites where sacred individuals could query thedeities (e.g., the shrine of Apollo at Delphi). How much time elapsedbetween the transmission of an oracle and its inscription isuncertain. Inscriptions from the surrounding Near Eastern milieuattest that messages received from a deity often were transcribedimmediately upon reception, with the prophet’s name attached.

Receptionand Delivery of Oracles

TheHebrew word massa’ (derived from nasa’, “to lift,take, carry”), variously translated “oracle” (Isa.17:1; 19:1; 21:1; 30:6), “burden” (Isa. 17:1 JPS, KJV),or “prophecy” (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 KJV), is used in thisfigurative sense primarily in prophetic speech (Prov. 30:1; 31:1 arethe exceptions) to refer to threatening pronouncements against Israel(Hab. 1:1; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 1:1), its neighbors (Isa. 13:1; 14:28;15:1; Nah. 1:1), or an individual (2Kings 9:25; 2Chron.24:27). Although the word itself is used infrequently, the propheticactivity of delivering divine pronouncements was prevalent throughoutIsrael’s history, rising in prominence during the monarchy andceasing at the beginning of the intertestamental period.

Priests,judges (Deut. 17:9), and prophets (1Sam. 9:9) could be therecipients and deliverers of divine oracles, although as the dutiesof these offices became more differentiated over time, delivery oforacles became more the province of the prophet (2Kings22:11–14; Jer. 21:2). A few oracles found in the OT areattributed to non-Israelites (Balaam [Num. 22–24]; Agur [Prov.30:1]; King Lemuel [Prov. 31:1]). The Israelites were commanded toseek Yahweh (Isa. 55:6; Hos. 10:12), and they (Isa. 9:13) and theirleaders (Jer. 10:21) were condemned both for failure to do so and fortheir dismissive response to a prophetic oracle once it had beendelivered, whether solicited (Ezek. 33:30–32) or not (Zech.7:12).

Prophetswere often sought to inquire about obtaining an oracle (1Sam.9:9; 2Kings 3:11; 22:13) during times of crisis or need. Suchoracles were for the benefit of either an individual (Exod. 18:15;2Kings 8:8) or the nation (1Kings 22:5; 2Kings3:11; 2Chron. 18:6) and were sought by commoners (Gen. 25:22;Exod. 18:15; Ezek. 33:30), elders (Ezek. 14:1–3; 20:1; see also8:1), royalty (1Kings 14:5; 22:5–8; 2Kings 22:18;2Chron. 26:5), army officials (Jer. 42:1–3), andforeigners (2Kings 8:7; Isa. 14:32). Prophetic response tooracular inquiry was not automatic. Deliverance of an oracle after aninquiry could be immediate (Jer. 37:17), delayed for an extendedperiod of time (Jer. 42:7 [ten days]), or the prophet could refuse todeliver an oracle (Jer. 23:33; Ezek. 14:1). A previous oracle couldbe superseded (Isa. 38 [compare v.1 with vv. 4–6]).Various commodities could be used for payment, including silver(1Sam. 9:7–8), food (1Kings 14:3), and foreigngoods (2Kings 8:7–9).

Oraclescould be pronounced publicly in various places, including the palace(2Kings 20:4–5), the temple (Jer. 7:2; 26:2), the citygates (1Kings 22:10; 2Chron. 18:9), the roadside (1Kings20:38–43), or privately to individuals, including royalty (Jer.37:17), officials (Isa. 22:15), and foreigners (Jer. 39:15–17).There are several mentions in Scripture of oracles that are not partof the canonical record (e.g., 2Chron. 24:27).

Oracularpronouncements could be brief (1Kings 17:1) or lengthy (thebooks of Nahum and Malachi), and they consisted of a variety ofgenres, including satire (Isa. 44:9–20), parable (2Sam.12:1–14), and lament (Jer. 9:20; Ezek. 19; Amos 5:1), toproduce the desired rhetorical effect. The prophetic introductory orconcluding oracular formulas “thus says the Lord” and“declares the Lord” echo the messenger terminology of thebroader culture, in which a similar introductory “thus saysX”was used by messengers delivering public proclamations on behalf ofthe one who commissioned them (2Chron. 36:23). In this way, theprophet presented an oracle as God’s message to the people, nothis own.

NominalIsrael was condemned for seeking pronouncements from false gods(2Kings 1:3–4, 6, 16; 2Chron. 25:15; Hos. 4:12),necromancy (Isa. 8:19), and failure to inquire of the true God ofIsrael (Zeph. 1:6). False prophets could also claim to have receivedcommunication from God (Deut. 13:1–11; 18:20; Ezek. 13), butthey were indicted for delivering their own message without divinesanction (Jer. 23:34–39; 28; Lam. 2:14; Ezek. 13), turning thepeople away from the true God to worship false gods (Deut. 13:1–11)and delivering oracular pronouncements in order to enjoy personalpleasure (Mic. 2:11) and gain (Jer. 6:13–15; 8:10–12).

OftenScripture simply notes that a prophet received a “word of theLord” (Jer. 1:2; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; cf. Isa. 14:28; Hab. 1:1)without explicitly stating the means by which the divinepronouncement was received. The prophetic witness mentions bothseeing (Isa. 1:1; 13:1; Amos 8:1; Hab. 1:1) and hearing (Ezek.1:24–25, 28) divine communication, but what actually happenedto the prophet is not easily determined. The references to the Spiritcoming upon an individual (Num. 11:25; 24:2; 1Sam. 10:6, 10;Ezek. 8:1; 11:5; 37:1) point to some sort of divine intervention thatseized the prophet’s consciousness in such a way as to preparethe prophet for a revelation from God.

Prophetswere known to have ecstatic or visionary experiences that marked themas operating under divine influence. In addition, several of theprophets (Isa. 20; Jer. 13:1–11; Ezek. 5:1–4) acted outdemonstrations (sign-acts) as part of their oracular ministry. Theseecstatic experiences and peculiar actions offended many of theircontemporaries (2Kings 9:11; Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7). Thesephenomena were concentrated around the two great crises faced byIsrael: the demise of the northern kingdom in 722 BC and of thesouthern kingdom in 586 BC. Having been given warning that nationaljudgment was imminent, these prophets were led to augment theirpreaching with dramatizations in order to convey more persuasively tothe audience the urgency of heeding their message (Ezek. 12:8–11).

Typesof Oracles

Formcritics have identified three main types of prophetic oracles:oracles of salvation, judgment, and repentance. The first is furtherdivided into subcategories: individual salvation oracles (1Kings17:8–16) and community salvation oracles (1Sam. 7:3–15).The prophets, however, were not tightly bound to the traditionalforms, and they demonstrated great creativity in modifying the formsto fit their personal style and the situation before them.

Thesevarious types of oracles were not arbitrary pronouncements; they werefounded on Israel’s covenantal relationship with Yahweh (Jer.34:18). The prophets served as covenant prosecutors, and theiroracles were part of the prosecution’s case on behalf of Yahwehagainst the people. Behavior, whether an individual’s or thenation’s, was evaluated in light of the demands of thecovenant. So too, Yahweh’s response—judgment orsalvation—was cast in terms of his faithfulness to thecovenant(s) that he made with Israel.

Salvationoracles announced Yahweh’s glorious deliverance andrestoration, mostly in response to the catastrophe of 586 BC (Ezek.11:16–21; 36:24–38; 37:15–28; Amos 9:11–15;Zeph. 3:14–20), and they could include in thesalvificpronouncement the destruction of the enemy (Zeph. 3:19). They oftenopen with the formulaic “in that day” (Amos 9:11; Mic.4:6), focusing Israel’s attention on a future time when all itsenemies would be subdued and covenantal blessings would beestablished and enjoyed by the redeemed community.

Judgmentoracles typically were introduced with an interjection, oftentranslated into English as “woe,” followed by a formaladdress and accusation accompanied by an announcement of thepunishment to be inflicted (Isa. 1:4; 5:8, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22; Jer.22:13; Ezek. 34:2). These oracles could take the form of a lawsuit.In Isa. 1:2 “heaven and earth” are summoned as witnesses,harking back to Deut. 30:19; 31:28; 32:1, where these elements ofnature were invoked by Moses to be witnesses of God’s covenantwith Israel. Some oracles state explicitly that a case has beenbrought against the people (Isa. 3:13; Jer. 2:9; Hos. 4:1; 12:2; Mic.6:1–2).

Repentanceoracles specifically summon the addressee to repentance and arecommitment to the covenant in order to avoid destruction (Isa.31:6; Jer. 4:1; Hos. 12:6).

Meansof Oracles

Variousobjects were sanctioned for use in discerning God’s will.Scripture is silent on many of the details regarding the manipulationof these objects, but the validity of their use for discerning thedivine will is not questioned. The mysterious Urim and Thummim, twostonelike objects kept in the high priest’s breastpiece, appearto have operated to give a “yes or no” response (Exod.28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut. 33:8; 1Sam. 14:41), though sometimesthere is no response at all (1Sam. 28:6). The ephod, some sortof two-piece linen apron or loin cloth worn by priests under thebreastpiece (Exod. 28:4, 6; 1Sam. 23:9–12; 1Sam.30:7–8; but note that Samuel was wearing one as he assisted thehigh priest Eli [1Sam. 2:18], and David, as he led theprocession returning the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem [2Sam.6:14]), was also pressed into service for discerning God’swill. Another method, the casting of lots, is shrouded in mystery.This method was used to determine the scapegoat on the Day ofAtonement (Lev. 16:8–10), the guilty party in the loss at Ai(Josh. 7:14), land allotment in Canaan (Josh. 14–19; 21),priestly assignments in the temple (1Chron. 24:5; 25:8; 26:13),residency in Jerusalem in the postexilic community (Neh. 11:1), theday to massacre the Jews in Persia as plotted by Haman (Esther 3:7;9:24), and dividing the Messiah’s clothing (Ps. 22:18; cf. John19:24).

Oraclesagainst the Foreign Nations

Aspecial group of oracles are those addressed to Israel’shistoric enemies, commonly referred to as “oracles against the[foreign] nations.” Blocks of these oracles are found in Amos1–2; Isa. 13–23; Jer. 46–51; Ezek. 25–32 andthe entire books of Nahum and Obadiah. These oracles were addressedto a specific foreign nation (the putative audience) but were heardby Israel. During a time when most people’s conception of deitywas tied to a specific land, these oracles maintained that Yahweh wassovereign over the whole earth, and that his purposes included allhumankind. All the nations do his bidding. These oracles were to beunderstood against the backdrop of Israel’s infidelity toYahweh and its futile reliance on the support of foreign nations. Theoracles demonstrated that Yahweh would bring down all that washaughty and would order events so that he alone would be high andexalted in the day of his coming. Those nations that cursed Israelwould themselves be cursed (Gen. 12:1–3; 27:29).

NewTestament Usage

Inthe NT, “oracle” (Gk. logion) occurs four times, alwaysin the plural (logia [NIV: “words”]). It refers to theMosaic law (Acts 7:38) and unspecified portions of revelation (Rom.3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1Pet. 4:11).

Terminology.Themodern scientific category of reptiles (air-breathing, cold-bloodedvertebrates) has no precise equivalent in the biblical vocabulary.The Hebrews described creatures by the way they moved, as “crawlingthings” (zakhal[Deut.32:24; Mic. 7:17]), “creeping things” (remes[Gen. 1:25–26]), and “swarming things” (sherets[Gen. 7:21]). All these terms, which probably overlapped, includedboth reptiles and small mammals.

Nakhash(e.g., Gen. 3) is the commonest general term for snakes and otherreptiles. Rarer terms are tannin(translated “snake” in Exod. 7:9, but more usuallymeaning a mythical “dragon”) and sarap(used, on its own or qualifying nakhash, of the fiery serpents inNum. 21:6, 8; Isa. 14:29; 30:6). In Greek, herpeton(Acts 10:12; 11:6; Rom. 1:23; James 3:7) includes snakes and lizards,while the generic word for snake is ophis(e.g., Matt. 7:10).

Besidesthese general terms, Scripture mentions the following: (1)thecrocodile (liwyatan)found in Egypt and Israel and sometimes portrayed in poetry as amythical monster (Job 3:8; 41:1; Pss. 74:14; 104:26; Isa. 27:1);(2)a variety of lizards, probably including geckos, skinks, andchameleons (Lev. 11:29, 30; Prov. 30:28); (3)a variety ofpoisonous snakes, including the cobra, or asp (Deut. 32:33; Rom.3:13), and the viper, or adder (Isa. 59:5; Acts 28:3).

Althoughtortoises are common in the Middle East, the KJV translation of theHebrew word tsabas “tortoise” in Lev. 11:29 almost certainly is wrong.However, since at least eighty kinds of reptile are found in Israel,precise identifications beyond this are difficult.

Reptilesin the Bible. Thesnake is an important image in Scripture. It is a snake that temptsAdam and Eve (Gen. 3:1; 2Cor. 11:3), and in the first promiseof salvation God says that the seed of woman will crush the snake’shead (Gen. 3:15). From that moment, the snake is condemned to crawlon its belly and eat dust (Gen. 3:14; Isa. 65:25).

Allsuch crawling creatures were unclean in OT law (Lev. 11:29–31).Although some Middle Eastern snakes are nonpoisonous, the OT alwaysportrays snakes as harmful as well as unclean (Deut. 8:15; 32:24, 33;Job 20:14, 16; Eccles. 10:8, 11; Isa. 30:6; Amos 5:19; Matt. 7:10;Luke 11:11). Because the venom was associated with the snake’stongue, the snake was a symbol of treacherous, lying speech as wellas of physical danger (Gen. 49:17; Pss. 58:4; 140:3; Prov. 23:32;Isa. 14:29; Jer. 8:17; 51:34; Matt. 23:33; Rev. 9:19), shrewdness(Matt. 10:16), and degradation (Mic. 7:17). For snakes to be renderedharmless was a sign of divine intervention (Ps. 91:13) and of themessianic age (Isa. 11:8; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18). Paul and Johnidentify the snake in Eden with Satan and look forward to his totaldestruction in the last days (Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9–17;20:2–3).

Snakesfeature three times in biblical miracles. First, Aaron’s rodwas transformed into a serpent that, when Pharaoh’s magiciansreplicated the feat, devoured the magicians’ serpents (Exod.7:10–15; cf. 4:3–4). This would have impressed Pharaohall the more because the snake was a symbol of the pharaoh’spower. Second, when God sent poisonous snakes to punish theIsraelites, who repented, God told Moses to set up a bronze snake ona pole; anyone who looked at the bronze snake (which only much laterbecame an object of idolatry) was saved (Num. 21:6–9; 2Kings18:4). This prefigured the cross, on which Christ became a curse forus (John 3:14; 1Cor. 10:9; Gal. 3:10). Third, Paul was bittenby a snake and suffered no harm (Acts 28:3–6).

The KJV uses “dragon” twenty-one times in the OTto translate the Hebrew word tannin, tannim. In Deut. 32:33 the termis used in parallel with peten (“adder” or “cobra”),indicating that it probably refers to a snake of some type. The termis rendered inconsistently by the KJV, so that elsewhere thetranslation is “whale” (Gen. 1:21; Job 7:12; Ezek.32:2–3) or “serpent” (Exod. 7:9–10, 12).There is also some confusion in the KJV of tannim with the plural ofthe noun tan, which means “jackal” (Job 30:29; Ps. 44:19;Isa. 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; 43:20; Jer. 9:11; 10:22; 14:6; 49:3; 51:37;Mic. 1:8; see also Lam. 4:3; Mal. 1:3).

Inmany passages the LXX uses the term drakōn, which again refersto a serpent. This term is used in the NT only in Revelation, where,as in the OT, the writer probably envisioned not the fire-breathingwinged monster familiar to most modern readers but rather somethingmore directly resembling a serpent (note Rev. 12:9, where the “greatdragon” is also described as the “ancient serpent”and identified as “the devil, or Satan”). Revelation 12:3elaborates by describing it as possessing “seven heads and tenhorns.” Hence, the dragon of Revelation is linked directly tothe serpent in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3), which is ultimatelysubject to defeat and eternal punishment (Rev. 20:7–10).

In the Bible, words for “spice” include theHebrew bosem(NIV: “spice, perfume, fragrance”) and sam (NIV:“fragrant incense, fragrant spice”) and the Greek arōmaand amōmon(NIV: “spice”). Aromatic vegetable products were usedeither to season food or as perfuming agents, and sometimes as both.The Greek term amōmonoccurs only in Rev. 18:13, in this context probably referring to aspice from India. The term arōmaoccurs only in Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 19:40, where it isnot technically part of an embalming process, since it does not stopdecomposition, but rather is intended to offset the odor of death. Ifa funeral pyre is not intended in 2Chron. 16:14, the spicesthere serve this same function. The Hebrew term sam occurs mostfrequently in Exodus in connection with the incense to be burnedbefore God (Exod. 25:6; 30:7, 34; 31:11; 35:8, 15, 28; 37:29; 39:38;40:27; cf. Lev. 4:7; 16:12; Num. 4:16; 2Chron. 13:11). The termbosem occurs more widely throughout the OT with reference to bothfragrances (e.g., Isa. 3:24) and spices (e.g., 1Kings 10:10)and can modify the name of specific spices, as in Exod. 30:23:“cinnamon spice” (NIV: “fragrant cinnamon”)and “cane spice” (NIV: “fragrant calamus”).

Spiceswere in high demand, making food and living more enjoyable,especially for the wealthy. They were used in food (implicit in Ezek.24:10) and drink (Song 8:2). The spice trade forged the earliestroutes from northern India to Sumer, Akkad, and Egypt (cf. Gen.37:25). Trade led to cultural exchange and, in the time of Solomon,to national wealth from tolls collected on such shipments. Ezekiel27:22 and Rev. 18:13 show the value associated with this trade, and2Kings 20:13 places spices among King Hezekiah’s“treasures.” The sensual luxury of spices could be erotic(e.g., Esther 2:12; Song 5:1; 6:2; 8:14); indeed, Song of Songs,though short, uses the word bosem more than any other book in the OT.Some spices, such as frankincense, were important to worship ritualsin ancient Israel, being used in offerings (Lev. 24:7) and in theanointing oil and incense (Exod. 25:6; 30:22–38). Producing theright mixtures required skilled individuals (Exod. 30:25; 1Chron.9:29–30).

Thelist below includes a number of spices named in the Bible.

Aloe(Heb. ’ahalim,’ahalot; Gk. aloē).In the OT this probably refers to Aquilaria agallocha, a spicederived from the eaglewood tree and used to perfume cloth (Ps. 45:8;Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14). In the NT, it refers to the juice from Aloevera leaves (John 19:39).

Balm(Heb. tsori).Apparently native to Gilead, the plant is now unknown. The earliestassociation is with stacte (Commiphoragilea-densis),which does not currently grow in Gilead. Noted for its healingbenefit to wounds (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8), balm was exported (Gen.37:25; 43:11; Ezek. 27:17).

Calamus(Heb. qaneh).Also known as sweet flag (Acoruscalamus),calamus was used for its aroma and as a tonic and stimulant (Song4:14; Isa. 43:24; Jer. 6:20; Ezek. 27:19).

Caraway(Heb. qetsakh).The seeds of this plant (Nigellasativa)were used as a condiment and to ease intestinal gas. A light beatingfreed the seeds without crushing them (Isa. 28:25, 27).

Cassia(Heb. qiddah,qetsi’ah).These Hebrew terms probably refer to an aromatic similar to cinnamon,like the bark of the Cinnamomum aromaticum, or more likely theCinnamomum iners of Arabia and Ethiopia (Exod. 30:24; Ps. 45:8; Ezek.27:19).

Cinnamon(Heb. qinnamon;Gk. kinna-mōmon).A local variety of cinnamon, or “true cinnamon”(Cinnamomumzeylanicum)imported from Sri Lanka (Exod. 30:23; Prov. 7:17; Song 4:14; Rev.18:13). Loosely related may be the “spice” (Gk. amōmon)of Rev. 18:13; the word often appears alongside “cardamom”in extrabiblical writings; it perhaps indicates black cardamom.

Coriander(Heb. gad).Also known as cilantro, this has long been used as a food seasoning;it also served as a medicine to aid digestion and sleep (Exod. 16:31;Num. 11:7).

Cumin(Heb. kammon;Gk. kyminon).Cuminum cyminum, which is similar to caraway in taste and appearance,has long been cultivated in Palestine as a seasoning. Like caraway,it is threshed to keep the seeds intact (Isa. 28:25, 27; Matt.23:23).

Dill(Gk. anēthon).Used for seasoning, this herb (Anethumgraveolens)was among those tithed by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23).

Frankincense(Heb. lebonah;Gk. libanos).This fragrant resin from trees of the genus Bos-wellia was used inworship (Exod. 30:34; Lev. 24:7) and was among the gifts brought toJesus at his birth (Matt. 2:11).

Gumresin(Heb. natap).Also known as stacte, this ingredient of the holy incense (Exod.30:34) was derived from either Commiphoragileadensis (balmof Gilead) or Styrax officinale.

Mint(Gk. hēdyosmon).Most likely Menthalongifolia,it was tithed by the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).

Myrrh(Heb. mor,lot;Gk. smyrna,cf. myron).A resin exuded from incisions in the branches of trees such asCommiphoramyrrhaand Commiphorakatafand useful for its fragrance and antiseptic properties (Exod. 30:23;Ps. 45:8; Prov. 7:17; Song 1:13; 3:6; Esther 2:12). Hebrew lot (Gen.37:25; 43:11) probably refers to labdanum.

Nard(Heb. nerd;Gr. nardos).In the OT (Song 1:12; 4:13–14), camel grass (Cymbopogonschoenanthus)from northern Africa and Arabia probably is in view, but in the NT(Mark 14:3; John 12:3), Nardostachysjatamansifrom Nepal is suggested. Nard was used as an ointment or perfume.

Rue(Gk. pēganon).Mentioned only in Luke 11:42, Ruta chalepensis was cultivated toflavor food and was thought to have medicinal value.

Saffron(Heb. karkom).Produced from the flowers of the Crocus sativus, native to Greece andAsia Minor, this expensive spice was used not only for culinarypurposes but also as an antispasmodic and emmenagogue (Song 4:14).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers 5:11–31 describes a judicial ordeal fordetermining whether a wife has been unfaithful. In the course of theritual, the wife suspected of wrongdoing is to drink water mixed withdirt from the floor of the tabernacle, thus made “bitter”(Heb. mar; Num. 5:18), and in which a scroll containing curses hasbeen washed (so that the water also contains the ink of the scroll).In the event that the woman was guilty of unfaithfulness, thisconcoction was intended to transfer to her body the curses againsther. Deuteronomy 21:1–9 may represent a second judicial ordealinvolving water, though bitterness is not involved. The names “EnMishpat” (“spring of judgment” [Gen. 14:7]) and “EnRogel” (“spring of inquiry” [e.g., Josh. 15:7]) mayalso refer to the use of water for divination or ordeal.

Shortlyafter crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites came to Marah(“bitterness”), where the waters were bitter and notpotable. Moses was divinely instructed to throw a piece of wood inthe water, rendering it sweet and drinkable (Exod. 15:23–25),the first of several divine provisions of drinking water in thedesert. Revelation 8:11 depicts apocalyptic divine judgment in termsof bitter or poisoned water. In both of these passages, bitterness iseffected or removed by the combination of wood and water: “wormwood”(Gk. apsinthos, a bitter substance derived from the wood of aparticular shrub). The image of Rev. 8:11 recalls a similar divinethreat in Jer. 9:15; 23:15.