1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
11 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' 12 But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.' "
13 Therefore this is what the Lord says: "Inquire among the nations: Who has ever heard anything like this? A most horrible thing has been done by Virgin Israel.
14 Does the snow of Lebanon ever vanish from its rocky slopes? Do its cool waters from distant sources ever cease to flow?
15 Yet my people have forgotten me; they burn incense to worthless idols, which made them stumble in their ways and in the ancient paths. They made them walk in bypaths and on roads not built up.
16 Their land will be laid waste, an object of lasting scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will shake their heads.
17 Like a wind from the east, I will scatter them before their enemies; I will show them my back and not my face in the day of their disaster."
18 They said, "Come, let's make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law by the priest will not be lost, nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So come, let's attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to anything he says."
19 Listen to me, O Lord; hear what my accusers are saying!
20 Should good be repaid with evil? Yet they have dug a pit for me. Remember that I stood before you and spoke in their behalf to turn your wrath away from them.
21 So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle.
22 Let a cry be heard from their houses when you suddenly bring invaders against them, for they have dug a pit to capture me and have hidden snares for my feet.
23 But you know, O Lord , all their plots to kill me. Do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger.
1 This is what the Lord says: "Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests 2 and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate. There proclaim the words I tell you, 3 and say, 'Hear the word of the Lord , O kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. 4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. 6 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord , when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.
7 " 'In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. 9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.'
10 "Then break the jar while those who go with you are watching, 11 and say to them, 'This is what the Lord Almighty says: I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter's jar is smashed and cannot be repaired. They will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. 12 This is what I will do to this place and to those who live here, declares the Lord . I will make this city like Topheth. 13 The houses in Jerusalem and those of the kings of Judah will be defiled like this place, Topheth-all the houses where they burned incense on the roofs to all the starry hosts and poured out drink offerings to other gods.' "
14 Jeremiah then returned from Topheth, where the Lord had sent him to prophesy, and stood in the court of the Lord 's temple and said to all the people, 15 "This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: 'Listen! I am going to bring on this city and the villages around it every disaster I pronounced against them, because they were stiff-necked and would not listen to my words.' "
On Being Picked For The "Rework"
Jeremiah 18:1--19:15
Sermon
by King Duncan
"Behold, the potter was working at the wheel And the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter. So he made it over reworking it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make it." (Jeremiah 18:3,4 Amplified Bible)
It was a classic episode of "I Love Lucy." Lucy had taken a job at a candy factory and she was being trained on the first day of her new job. It was Lucy's duty to stand at a conveyor belt with pieces of candy continuously passing in front of her. She was to add the finishing touches to the process. Her boss had walked out of the room, but not before she emphasized strongly that her job was vital. She would lose her job if she let even a single piece of candy slip by her station untouched. At first Lucy was doing fine, but the conveyor belt gradually picked up speed and before long she was frantic, grabbing candy and stuffing it everywhere she could her mouth, her coat, her pockets, her dress so that no unfinished piece would make it through her station. It was a classic.
I couldn't help but think of that hilarious scene as I read Life magazine's description of Steve Bailey, the Candy Man from Lebanon, PA. Steve doesn't put the finishing touches on all of the 33 million Hershey's Kisses that are manufactured in a single day. No, he only has about 20,000 Hershey's Kisses pass his inspection station only 20,000 every 60 seconds! Life magazine calls him a "choco Valentino," a "maestro of the Kiss." A picture shows Steve's watchful and capable eye squinting over a virtual sea of unwrapped chocolate Kisses.
Steve's job is to search for anything less than sheer chocolate perfection. (1) Steve's job is not as difficult as the numbers suggest. He admits that the large majority of the 1,200,000 Kisses that pass him every hour are already perfect by the time they reach him. But, he admits, some pieces don't quite pass the perfect specifications that are required. The public's expectations of what a Hershey's Kiss is supposed to look like when it is unwrapped are so high that only perfection will do! Steve will not allow a defective piece of chocolate to pass his station only to disappoint whoever unwraps it at home. No, when we indulge in a Hershey's Kiss, Steve sees to it that it is exactly 15/16 of an inch diameter at the base, that it has the proper smooth appearance, that it is not leaning to the side, and above all the imperfections his trained and a steady eye checks the curl at the top can't be either standing up too straight or drooping too low. It must be perfect!
Now, here's the question. What happens to the Kisses that fall short of these lofty chocolate requirements? Steve tells us that he picks out the imperfect specimens of chocolate and brushes them aside to a catchoff pan where they go into a process that is called, the rework. Here the defective pieces are melted down, the chocolate is mixed with the rest of the prehardened candy, and the process starts all over again, continuing until chocolate perfection is reached.
When Steve the Candy Man mentioned that defective Kisses end up in rework, it immediately brought to my mind the parable for which Jeremiah is most famous the Parable of the Potter in Jeremiah 18:16: "Behold, the potter was working at the wheel And the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter. So he made it over, reworking it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make it."
Now, in Jeremiah's time (about 700 years before Jesus was born) there were no chocolate factories. For him, the potter at the wheel was the most uptodate visual object lesson he could use to illustrate how carefully God plans and works with his people. The potter's workshop was a familiar, everyday sight for the people of Jeremiah's time. Most of us have seen a potter making a vessel out of clay as the wheel holding the clay spins. But this is something we witness today at places like craft booths, museums and amusem*nt parks.
For the people of Jeremiah's day, pottery was in everyday use, not just for decoration or as a piece of history in a museum, but it was necessary every day. The skills of the potter were in high demand. The word "wheel" is the Hebrew word, haabnayim, literally "two stones." Two stones were connected by a vertical axle. The potter rotated the larger lower stone with foot power while he shaped the clay on the upper wheel with his skilled and delicate touch. Modern commercial wheels use electrical power to turn the lower wheel, but many ceramic artists still prefer the footpowered apparatus that so fascinated Jeremiah and inspired this analogy.
So you see, for the people of Jeremiah's day, the potter was as much an illustration out of everyday life as the making of Hershey's Kisses would be for us today, nearly 3000 years later. Here are the basic lessons taught by both parables:
First, a product is expected to attain certain very high standards of perfection. Both the potter and the candy man take enormous pride in the finished product and will accept nothing short of perfection.
Second, sometimes, the product fails to measure up. For Steve Bailey, the top may be a bit too curled or the outside of too rough texture. For Jeremiah's potter, the work is said to be "spoiled," probably for some of the very same reasons, the shape may be poor or the texture not right, or the color not right.
Third, the defective piece is selected for REWORK. In the case of the chocolate, it is melted down and remixed with the unhardened chocolate. In the case of the potter, the clay is remixed with the rest of the clay. The whole process is started over.
Fourth, and perhaps the most important thing in gaining a proper understanding of God's message to us is that the process of being picked for REWORK is entirely at the discretion of the potter. Jeremiah says that the pieces were selected for REWORK, "as it seemed good to the potter."
It is this vital feature of the parable that Christians have latched on to as they have assimilated this Old Testament parable into New Testament Christian culture. As we shall see, Paul adopted it in this way in Romans 9, and that set the stage for the Christian emphasis on God's care and power over our lives. For example, a wellknown hymn by Adelaide Pollard in 1907, goes like this:
Have Thine Own Way, Lord!
Have Thine Own Way!
Thou art the Potter! I am the Clay!
Mold me and make me, after thy will!
While I am waiting, yielded and still!
Sounds like a nice prayer, a wonderful song. But let me ask you. How many of us are truly "waiting, yielded and still?" That may be so of Steve's little candy pieces, motionless as they are carried along on a conveyor belt. That may be so of an inanimate piece of clay that awaits the soft and skilled touch of the potter's fingers. But that is most definitely not true of us!
Our troublesome freewill adds a complicating factor to the parable, doesn't it? The fact that we exercise freewill adds something to the parables that images of inanimate clay and smooth chocolate simply cannot address. It may seem to the potter that the clay has a mind of its own, but it does not. We, however, do indeed have minds and hearts of our own. We are free moral creatures. We don't have to wait on a mistake by the potter to ruin us no, we do a very good job of that on our own! We are free moral creatures, but the sad fact is that we are all spoiled by sin. Since the fall, our freedom is exercised unilaterally always in a direction away from God. This is the parable, as Dr. Don Strobe dubbed it, of "God and Us CrackedPots!"
God, the Divine Potter, sends us off into the "catch pan" of fallen humanity, and there we are "melted down." That's precisely what happens to us when we come to acknowledge and profess Christ we are melted down. Let me explain. We may go through our lives thinking we are pretty impressive, at least as clay pots go! We observe the other clay jars around us and we are certainly no worse than many of them! We're not so bad. We can come to regard ourselves as very attractive human specimens.
However, in God's eyes we are spoiled, and in His grace He brushes us aside into a "catch pan" for the rework. What happens in reality is this one hears the Word of God that declares he is a sinner. As that word becomes more and more real, the person whose religious "shape" he once was fairly proud of, begins to lose shape. The melting flames of the word become hotter as they declare, "there is none righteous, no not one. There is none that does good, none that seeketh after God!" This one, who thought at one time that he was a pretty outstanding piece of work now feels that he is only a small part of the universal mix of others just like him lost and formless. The "form of religion" that once was his has been melted by the word of God. Thus the Divine Potter removes him from the wheel and sends him to the rework, mixed with the other clay. No longer does he feel individual and proud of his shape instead he feels himself to be part of the messy mass of lost humanity.
Here is the Good News. The very fact that we experience this process of the Rework is evidence that God is yet working with us God is not finished. We were sent to the Rework and His sovereign and merciful hands scooped us up and placed us back on the upper wheel to make of us His own workmanship. He wanted us perfect, and would settle for nothing less. He wanted to conform us to the image of His Son Jesus Christ! Since we could not attain that standard on our own, He will start all over and do it in us.
When Paul borrowed Jeremiah's image, he anticipated that some would blame God. "Well, Brother Paul, if God is the potter and I am a mindless, motionless chunk of clay, then let's reason this out if I am marred, it's not my fault, but his! It's his negligence, not mine." That makes sense, doesn't it? If you are shopping and a piece of pottery on the shelf looks bad, do you blame the clay, or the potter? The potter, of course! The potter was unskilled! So they object to Paul's use of the parable saying, "Using your analogy, if I turn out bad, God is at fault here, not me!" I can understand their argument, can't you?
Paul is not reluctant to face their objection. "Who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, why have you made me this way? Has not the potter power over the clay that all originates from the same lump, to make one a vessel of honor, and the other a vessel of dishonor?" Paul then uses Pharaoh to illustrate God's actions. Pharaoh "hardened his heart" against God's words, and it is also said that "God hardened his (Pharaoh's) heart." "I will have mercy on whom I choose to have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I choose to have compassion. And whom I will, I harden." In other words, Paul is saying that God allowed a flawed specimen to pass by undetected, hardened into a flawed state. Pharaoh was not sent to meltdown and Rework. "I allowed him to harden in his defective condition."
We may think it is a blessing to avoid the Rework, but it is not. To be allowed by God to remain unchallenged by His Spirit, uncorrected by His Word, unchanged by the wonderful fires of his purifying grace, is not a blessing but a curse. Can we be like Pharaoh? Surely. Pharaoh heard the words of God and hardened his heart. We can also hear his Word and allow it to bounce off leaving us unchanged, unmoved, untouched, proud of our shape. As the word of God is preached, it will always send us into the Rework, creating change, making of us new creatures. His Word should be a seed of change in us.
London businessman Lindsay Clegg told the story of a warehouse property he was selling. The building had been empty for months and was in dire need of repair. Vandals had done severe damage. Windows were smashed, doors in bad repair, and trash was strewn about. As he showed a prospective buyer the property, he emphasized that he would replace the broken windows and have a crew to repair the structural damage and to clean up the place. The buyer laughed and replied, "Forget the repairs! When I buy this place I'm going to start all over and build something different. I don't want the building, I just want the site!" (2)
That's God's message to us. We might try to gloss over the flaws in our life with a little structural work here and there. But our efforts at reform are as trivial as sweeping out a warehouse that is slated for the wrecking ball. When God acts, we are sent to the Rework! He makes all things new. All He wants is the site! You are the SITE!
1. Life, September 1993.
2. James Hewett, Editor, Illustrations Unlimited (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988).
Pastor Siegfried S. Johnson is pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
Dynamic Preaching, Collected Sermons, by King Duncan
Overview: The central theme throughout Jeremiah 11–20 is that of conflict. On the one hand, Israel has shattered the Mosaic covenant made during the exodus, and now God’s spokesman Jeremiah is under attack. In Jeremiah 11 God states that Israel and Judah have broken (i.e., ended) the Mosaic covenant. Thus God will no longer listen to their cries or allow Jeremiah to intercede for them (11:11–12, 14). On the other hand, the shattered Mosaic covenant points to the need for a “new” and better covenant (Jeremiah 31).
Jeremiah’s words are unpopular, and in 11:18–23 men from his hometown plot to kill him. Jeremiah turns to God with a “complaint” or “lament” (12:1–4), imploring God to hurry with the judgment on these evil ones. God gently reminds Jeremiah not to give up so easily, for things are g…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message." 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4 But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the Lord . "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
11 "Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, 'This is what the Lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you. So turn from your evil ways, each one of you, and reform your ways and your actions.' 12 But they will reply, 'It's no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart.' "
13 Therefore this is what the Lord says: "Inquire among the nations: Who has ever heard anything like this? A most horrible thing has been done by Virgin Israel.
14 Does the snow of Lebanon ever vanish from its rocky slopes? Do its cool waters from distant sources ever cease to flow?
15 Yet my people have forgotten me; they burn incense to worthless idols, which made them stumble in their ways and in the ancient paths. They made them walk in bypaths and on roads not built up.
16 Their land will be laid waste, an object of lasting scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will shake their heads.
17 Like a wind from the east, I will scatter them before their enemies; I will show them my back and not my face in the day of their disaster."
18 They said, "Come, let's make plans against Jeremiah; for the teaching of the law by the priest will not be lost, nor will counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophets. So come, let's attack him with our tongues and pay no attention to anything he says."
19 Listen to me, O Lord; hear what my accusers are saying!
20 Should good be repaid with evil? Yet they have dug a pit for me. Remember that I stood before you and spoke in their behalf to turn your wrath away from them.
21 So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle.
22 Let a cry be heard from their houses when you suddenly bring invaders against them, for they have dug a pit to capture me and have hidden snares for my feet.
23 But you know, O Lord , all their plots to kill me. Do not forgive their crimes or blot out their sins from your sight. Let them be overthrown before you; deal with them in the time of your anger.
1 This is what the Lord says: "Go and buy a clay jar from a potter. Take along some of the elders of the people and of the priests 2 and go out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom, near the entrance of the Potsherd Gate. There proclaim the words I tell you, 3 and say, 'Hear the word of the Lord , O kings of Judah and people of Jerusalem. This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Listen! I am going to bring a disaster on this place that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle. 4 For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods; they have burned sacrifices in it to gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5 They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. 6 So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord , when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.
7 " 'In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. 9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.'
10 "Then break the jar while those who go with you are watching, 11 and say to them, 'This is what the Lord Almighty says: I will smash this nation and this city just as this potter's jar is smashed and cannot be repaired. They will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. 12 This is what I will do to this place and to those who live here, declares the Lord . I will make this city like Topheth. 13 The houses in Jerusalem and those of the kings of Judah will be defiled like this place, Topheth-all the houses where they burned incense on the roofs to all the starry hosts and poured out drink offerings to other gods.' "
14 Jeremiah then returned from Topheth, where the Lord had sent him to prophesy, and stood in the court of the Lord 's temple and said to all the people, 15 "This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: 'Listen! I am going to bring on this city and the villages around it every disaster I pronounced against them, because they were stiff-necked and would not listen to my words.' "
These two chapters describe two sign acts. Both involve clay pots. In the first a marred pot is a prelude to a call to repentance—a call that is defiantly rejected. In the second sign act, a pot is smashed as a visual message about the coming catastrophe upon the city of Jerusalem. God’s sovereignty is evident throughout. If one includes chapter 20, one can see two symmetrical halves, the second half of each (2 and 4 below) more elaborate and precise than the first:
1. Pottery making/smashing 18:1–10; 19:1–13
2. God shapes disaster 18:11–17; 19:14–15
3. Attack on the prophet 18:18; 20:1–16
4. A response of lament 18:19–23; 20:17–18
The sign act or symbolic action is in the traditional form: (1) an instruction, (2) a report of compliance, and (3) an interpretation. The potter’s equipment consisted of two stone disks placed horizontally and joined by a vertical shaft. The lower would be spun using the feet; the other, at waist level, had on it the clay for the potter’s hand to shape.
“Uprooted,” “torn down,” and “destroyed,” as well as “built up” and “planted” (18:7, 9), recall words from Jeremiah’s call, which occur there, as here, in the context of nations generally (Jer. 1:10; cf. 24:6).
It is not so much that God offers a second chance but that, just as the potter is in charge and decides what to do when things go other than planned, so God is in charge and at any given moment has the option of choice. In some sense at least, prophetic announcements are conditional. God is not arbitrary; repentance makes a difference.
The principle stated in verses 6–8 is next applied to Judah (18:11–17). Their decision to follow their own stubborn heart is confirmed by their explicit statement. God assesses their decision as “horrible” (18:13)—unlike the decision of other nations (Jer. 2:10–11). The argument in verse 14 is that it is contrary to nature for snow to leave Lebanon. The seriousness of coming disaster is described by responses of others to it: scorn (18:16) is hissing or whistling in unbelief. God’s “face” (18:17) is language for blessing and favor.
The decision to follow personal plans puts into effect plans to do away with the prophet (18:18–23). Priests, wise men, and prophets, along with kings, represent that society’s leaders. Jeremiah’s prayer incorporates elements similar to those in his other laments (see Jer. 11:18–23; 12:1–4; 15:10–21; 17:14–18). There is personal petition, complaint, and a call for God to bring vengeance. Evil has been paid him for the good he has done—specifically, he has sought the well-being of those now turned against him. The question of 18:20 could also be a question asked by his persecutors, who think of their actions as good.
We are shown an angry prophet. Against families (women, youths, children) Jeremiah would bring famine and sword. Even more, he prays God to forestall any atonement for their sins. Here is a lapse in prophetic intercession. Even acknowledging that Jeremiah leaves the matter in God’s hands, he falls short of Jesus’s response to his enemies: “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34). One may, however, in Jeremiah’s response see mirrored how God in justice might deal with those opposing him.
The terrible message of doom is first made vivid to the elders by means of a smashed pot; later the same message is announced to all the people (19:1–15). Egyptians wrote names of enemies on pottery jars and then smashed them, believing that such action magically triggered disaster.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Jeremiah’s First Trip to the Potter (18:1-23): Though observed by Jeremiah rather than performed by Jeremiah, we now hear of another prophetic action that illustrates the prophet’s verbal message. Jeremiah 18:1–4 narrates the action while 18:5–10 interprets the general significance of the action. Verses 11–12 apply the teaching of the general principle specifically to Judah and Judah’s negative response to God’s call for repentance. A poetic oracle registering surprise at the people’s unwillingness to change follows along with a statement of their coming destruction (vv. 13–17). A plot against Jeremiah motivated by the people’s distaste for these negative oracles is disclosed (v. 18), and finally another lament of Jeremiah (vv. 19–23), bemoaning the plots against him and calling on God to punish the plotters.
18:1–4 God begins by telling Jeremiah to go to the house of the potter where God will give the prophet a message. Jeremiah responds obediently and observes the potter at work. The basic method of throwing a pot is the same today as it was in antiquity. The potter would place a clay on a wheel and as it revolved would use his hands to mold the clay into a useful shape. However, on this occasion things did not go according to plan, and the hoped-for pot was misshapen. The remedy was easy enough: start over again. We are to imagine that the potter took the misshapen pot, smashed it down again, and then molded it into another pot.
18:5–10 As promised, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, and we next hear the divine oracle delivered on this occasion. It is addressed to the house of Israel and challenges them to consider themselves like the clay and the potter to be like God. The language of the oracle here changes, but the implication is clear. God is sovereign over the nations and particularly over Israel (here standing for Judah). If he perceives that the pot, which is Israel, is misshapen (that is, sinful), then he can crush it and start over. The language by which the oracle continues goes back to Jeremiah’s commission in Jeremiah 1:10, where God appoints Jeremiah “over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow.” On the other hand, and again reverting to the language of Jeremiah 1:10, God can also choose that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted.
However, these decisions are conditional upon the response of the nations and kingdoms. If those announced for judgment repent or those who are established sin, then all bets are off.
18:11–12 Germane to Judah and Jerusalem in this oracle is the former condition, namely repentance. Because of their sins, they are now marked for judgment. But if they repent, then disaster can be averted. God calls on them to repent, to turn away from their sins and avert the coming judgment.
However, Judah will have none of it. They persist in their sins. In language surely put into the mouths of the inhabitants of Judah in order to state what their actions demonstrated, we hear them say: It’s no use. We will continue with our own plans; each of us will follow the stubbornness of his evil heart (v. 12).
18:13–17 The next section begins with therefore (laken) indicating that the following divine oracle is in reaction to the refusal to repent of the previous verse. In a word, God registers consternation at their stubbornness, followed by a renewed commitment to punish them.
Not even the pagan nations have ever heard of such a thing. That thing is substituting false gods (idols) for the true God. The nations do not betray their (false) gods. Such a situation is described as a most horrible thing (shaʿarurit). A variant form of this word (shaʿarurah) is used in Jeremiah 5:30 and 23:14 in reference to prophets giving false prophecies. Virgin Israel, a term of continuing endearment, has done the unexpected by worshiping false deities and refusing to repent.
The unexpected should not happen. Snow is always on the rocky slopes of the high mountains of Lebanon. Cool water always flows from distant sources. And Israel should repent and worship the one true God, but it doesn’t!
They have forgotten God, which means they do not worship and obey him. Rather they participate in idolatrous worship rituals. They burn incense to other gods. In this way, they have stumbled on the ancient paths and have taken side roads. The metaphor of the path reminds the reader of the two-path theology of Proverbs (see Longman, Proverbs, pp. 59–61). The path is the journey of life. Walking on the ancient paths would signify living according the Yahwistic tradition, while taking the bypaths would be cutting a new way. The last colon of verse 15 underlines this last point by referring to the paths as roads not built up. Of course, one cannot travel well on such ill-formed roads.
Thus, the final two verses of the oracle move to judgment. God declares that their land will be laid waste. Though not specified, this certainly refers to the destruction of Judah by the Babylonian army. As a result, they will be the object of scorn or ridicule.
God then says he will be like a wind from the east, the sirocco with its tremendous, life-sapping heat. By showing them his back rather than his face, he indicates that he will depart from them during the day of their disaster, when the punishment comes. They will see his back as he walks away from them to let them suffer the consequences in his absence.
18:18 All of a sudden we hear from “they,” clearly a reference to the people who were the recipients of the pronouncement of divine judgment delivered by Jeremiah. They plot against him. They will verbally attack him, probably by undermining his reputation, plus they will ignore what he says. Of course, what is most damaging to them is that they pay no attention to the charge of sin he has leveled against them and will not respond to his call to repentance.
Their reasoning is fascinating and often commented on because it seems to list three functionaries who are pivotal in teaching the people the will of Yahweh. These three groups include the priest, the wise teacher, and the prophet. Of further interest is the association between these three and their respective media of divine revelation. The priest is associated with the law, charged to teach the people the law from the moment of its and their inception (Deut. 33:10). The wisdom teacher is associated with counsel. This description of the wise is consonant with that we get in the book of Proverbs. They are able to give advice to others. Finally, the prophet has the word, short for the word of God. The prophets speak oracles given to them by God. As the people reject Jeremiah and his message, they encourage each other by saying that they still have these vehicles of divine revelation. Get rid of Jeremiah and there will still be a conduit to the divine. However, the broader context of Jeremiah leads us to believe that these priests, sages, and prophets are not legitimate; rather, they say only what the people themselves want to hear.
18:19–23 Jeremiah responds to this plotting by accusing them before Yahweh. Jeremiah thus utters another of his laments or confessions (11:18–12:6; 15:10–11, 15–21; 17:14–18; 20:7–13, 14–18). He first calls Yahweh’s attention to these plotting words. He has done good for them, by preaching God’s message to them and giving them the opportunity of repentance, which would spare them from punishment. But they repay this good with evil. They seek to undermine the prophet, a fate described as digging a pit. It is as if Jeremiah is walking on the path of life but that these wicked people have set a trap, a pit into which he will fall.
But Jeremiah has done more than speak God’s words of warning and issued the call to repentance to them. He has also come before God and prayed on their behalf. In so doing, Jeremiah has fulfilled the intercessory role of the prophet. The prophet was charged with appealing to God on behalf of the people as well as presenting God’s judgment to them. We can see this with Abraham (Gen. 20:7), Moses (Exod. 33:12–23), Samuel (1 Sam. 12:3), and others.
Since they have responded to Jeremiah’s good with such evil, his prayer of intercession on behalf of the people turns into an imprecatory prayer, asking for God’s judgment against them. The language that follows is similar to the curses of the psalms calling for the destruction of the enemy. First, he asks that God allow their children to experience famine and that they themselves will be struck down by the sword. In this way, their wives will become grieving widows. Of course, the content of these curses fit well with the coming punishment since it describes the aftermath of a battle like that which Judah will experience at the hands of the Babylonians.
Additional Notes
18:13 Schmitt (“The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of the Phrase in Amos and Jeremiah,” CBQ 53 [1991], pp. 365–87) has made the argument that Virgin Israel should be understood in a construct genitival relationship, thus “Virgin of Israel,” and as a specific reference to the city of Jerusalem, not the entirety of Israel (see also 31:4, 21).
A Clay Jar: Judgment against Topheth (19:1--20:6): Jeremiah 18 narrates a trip to the potter where a lesson is drawn from the relationship between the potter and the clay he molds into a vessel. No chronological relationship is explicit between chapters 18 and 19 and the sequence may simply be the result of the common theme of the potter. In this passage, however, Jeremiah purchases a finished pot and takes it to the valley of Ben Hinnom, also known as Topheth, where horrible and idolatrous rituals were performed. He identifies the pot as symbolic of the apostate nation of Israel and then smashes it. This ritual reminds us of the Egyptian execration texts. These are texts on which the names of Egypt’s enemies were written and then smashed in anticipation of the destruction of the nations themselves. Walton (IVPBBCOT, p. 656) also notes a possible literary connection that goes back to the Sumerian Lament over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur which compares the citizens of destroyed Ur to broken pots (“Its people like potsherds littered its sides” [COS 1:163, 536, line 211]). After speaking at Topheth itself, Jeremiah returns to the temple where he also speaks of Judah’s coming judgment. Finally, in response especially to Jeremiah’s speech at the temple, a priestly official, Pashhur has the prophet beaten. As a result, Jeremiah delivers a judgment speech against Pashhur and takes the opportunity to deliver yet one more oracle against Judah.
19:1–6 The chapter begins with the divine directive to Jeremiah to purchase a clay jar from the potter. The clay jar may be more specifically a flask (the Hebrew term baqbuq) may be onomatopoetic for the sound that liquid would make coming out of the vessel (NIDOTTE, vol. 2, p. 655). The clay jar will be a prop for yet another prophetic symbolic action. He takes the elders of the people and the priests out to the Valley of Ben Hinnom. That he could convince these important individuals in Judean society to accompany him indicates that Jeremiah was something of a force to be reckoned with and could not be easily ignored.
For the Valley of Ben Hinnom see commentary on Jer. 7:30–34. We do not know the Potsherd Gate except in this one occasion, but the name describes broken pieces of pots littering the exit to the “dump.” The gate may have gone by a variety of names including the Dung Gate (Neh. 2:13; 3:13, 14; 12:31).
Upon his arrival at this location, God instructed Jeremiah to deliver an oracle that announces a future, horrible punishment upon the people. It is so bad that it will make the ears of everyone who hears it tingle. The reason for the punishment is given as idolatry and the reason for the choice of this location for the delivery of the oracle is now clear. This place has been dedicated to the worship of foreign deities, in particular to Baal. Specifically, they have offered their own children as sacrifices to their false god here.
In the context of the announcement of judgment, we hear a second name for this place, Topheth (see also Jer. 7:30–34). This word in Hebrew means “spit” and is clearly a pejorative name expressing contempt for the place. It is of great interest to note that 2 Kings 23:10 tells us that Topheth was desecrated during the reforms of Josiah. “He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech.” Here, the child sacrifice is associated with Molech rather than Baal, but the principle is the same. Since Jeremiah is speaking this judgment speech at least in part to the kings of Judah (19:3), it suggests that Jehoiakim rebuilt the place and started using it again. Whatever its name—Topheth or Valley of Hinnom—Yahweh through Jeremiah announces a name change. In the future it will be called the Valley of Slaughter. The slaughter will be that of the Judeans who practice such horrific rites. This prophetic judgment has already been narrated in 7:30–34 and the theme will be revisited in 32:35.
19:7–9 In these verses Jeremiah continues to relate Yahweh’s judgment against his apostate people. He will ruin their plans. The plans probably point to their intention to continue worshiping false gods and offering child sacrifice to them, perhaps as a misguided attempt to stave off disaster. He will frustrate these plans by allowing their enemies (who will turn out to be the Babylonians) to have victory over them. They will meet the most horrible of ends. They will not only die in battle, but they will not even receive proper burial. Their bodies instead will be exposed on the battlefield and be picked at by birds and animals of prey. In other words, God will use his creatures, both their human enemies as well as the animals of land and air, to accomplish his judgment. But it is not only the death of the ungodly people of Judah that will result; the city of Jerusalem itself will be destroyed. Those who hear about it will be horrified and speak poorly of the city, which at a better time was “beautiful in its loftiness, and the joy of the whole earth” (Ps. 48:2). Finally, Jeremiah, on behalf of God, describes the horrors of the coming siege. The inhabitants of the city will run out of food and then eat their children (see 2 Kgs. 6:24–31, for such a description during an earlier siege) and then one another. From 2 Kings 25:1–7, we learn that the siege began against Jerusalem on January 15, 588 B.C. (Hebrew translates: “on the tenth day of the tenth month of the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign”) and did not end till all the food ran out on July 18, 586 B.C. (by the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah’s eleventh year; see also Jeremiah 52:6).
19:10–13 At this point Jeremiah was to take the jar and smash it. This action anticipates what will happen to the city and its citizens. They too will be smashed through an act of divine judgment. Jeremiah also makes the point that the defilement caused by idolatry is not just restricted to Topheth, this location of child sacrifice outside the city, but extends to the entirety of Jerusalem. As a result, God will make Jerusalem like Topheth, a place of ruin. After all it was not just at Topheth that they burned incense on the roofs to all the starry hosts and poured out drink offerings to other gods.
19:14–15 The chapter ends with Jeremiah leaving Topheth after the prophetic action of breaking the clay jar that represented Judah, and delivering a brief related oracle to all the people at the court of the LORD’s temple. In this way, the audience for his words expands. By standing on ground made holy by the Lord’s presence, Jeremiah’s words grow in solemnity.
The oracle is not only brief, it is to the point. God will bring on Jerusalem and its surrounding villages every disaster I pronounced against them. Whether this previous pronouncement points immediately to words that Jeremiah has already spoken to the people specifying siege, defeat, death, exile, or whether it refers to the divine words pronounced in covenant curses such as those found in Deuteronomy 28 is beside the point. The former derives from the latter. The stated purpose is also straightforward. The people have not obeyed God’s words as they have been stated through the law.
20:1–6 The text now narrates the reaction of a powerful official (chief officer in the temple of the LORD) to Jeremiah’s judgment speech, most likely the one just delivered in the temple precincts. This official is named Pashhur, the son (in the sense of descendant) of Immer. We know from the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 9:12 that Pashhur was a priest himself. He is not the same Pashhur as in Jeremiah 21:1.
Priests were guardians of the holy space (Longman, Immanuel in Our Place, pp. 117–60), and so Pashhur was surely within his rights to punish someone whom he thought was a false prophet (Deut. 17:12). However, since Jeremiah’s prophecy was not false, the story condemns Pashhur. It does so by having Jeremiah deliver a personal judgment speech against the priest. He renames Pashhur, Magor-Missabib. The new name means “terror on every side,” and is an expression used eight other times in Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. “Such an expression depicts a hopeless state of terror where survival itself is threatened” (NIDOTTE, vol. 1, p. 840). This encompassing horror will not only be the experience of Pashhur, but of all of Judah. Pashhur thus embodies the sins and will illustrate the punishments that come on the land of Judah as a whole. This oracle is significant because it is the first specification of Babylon as the instrument of God’s judgment. Elsewhere permutations like “foe from the north” are used.
Additional Notes
19:7 There is a sound play between I will ruin (baqqoti) and the word for clay jar (baqbuq), which seems intentional (Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, p. 836; Fretheim, Jeremiah, p. 283).
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Tremper Longman III, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
A West Semitic weather and warrior deity. There is evidence that “Baal,” meaning “lord,” was a proper name for a deity as early as the third millennium BC and may have been identified with the god Hadad.
Second millennium texts from the ancient city of Ugarit depict Baal as a god of weather and storm whose provision of precipitation ensures the seasonal cycles of crops. The Baal Cycle from Ugarit also depicts him defeating Yamm, the god of the sea, and Mot, the god of death. Some of these associations shed light on polemics against Baal in the OT. Yahweh’s withholding rain at Elijah’s request (1Kings 17:1), for example, undermines Baal’s claim to control the weather. Further, descriptions of Yahweh as a storm god, such as Ps. 29, may be understood as polemical statements that Yahweh, not Baal, is the one who really controls the storm.
The worship of Baal alongside Yahweh received official sponsorship in Israel under Ahab (1Kings 16:3133) and in Judah under Manasseh (2Kings 10:18–27). The worship of this deity was grounds for the exile of Israel (2Kings 17:16).
A valley on the southern slopes of Jerusalem, variously referred to as “Valley of Hinnom,” “Valley of Ben Hinnom” (lit., “son of Hinnom”), “Valley of the Sons of Hinnom,” or even just “the Valley” (e.g., Jer. 2:23). At least two kings of Judah, Ahaz (2Chron. 28:3) and Manasseh (33:6), sacrificed their own sons in the fire at the Topheth, a site in the valley. The practice, which certainly extended beyond just royalty, was condemned by the prophets, Jeremiah in particular (Jer. 7:3132; 32:35). King Josiah, as part of his reform movement, defiled the Topheth to prevent further child sacrifice (2Kings 23:10). “Valley of Hinnom” becomes in Greek “Gehenna,” which in all its occurrences in the NT refers to hell.
The OT employs thirty-five different words for birds (both wild and domestic), but the identification of these words with known species has proved to be very difficult. Like other words for animals, terminology for birds often is employed in personal names (e.g., Jonah, Oreb, Zippor, Zipporah). There is significant evidence for fowling practices in ancient Israel, usually by means of nets and snares (Pss. 124:7; 140:5; Prov. 6:5; 7:23; Lam. 3:52; Hos. 7:12; Amos 3:5). Small birds and chickens are occasionally even depicted on Iron AgeII (1000586 BC) seals and vessels from sites such as el-Jib (Gibeon) and Tell en-Nasbeh (Mizpah).
Like other animals in the Bible, birds are depicted as agents of God. Divine agency is especially evident in instances such as the ravens feeding Elijah (1Kings 17:4–6) and the dove bringing an olive leaf to Noah (Gen. 8:11). The Bible also employs bird-related imagery such as in descriptions of divine judgment (Prov. 30:17; Jer. 12:9). Birds may also serve as ominous signs of impending judgment (Hos. 8:1). God’s “wings” can offer both healing (Mal. 4:2 KJV, RSV) and protection (Ruth 2:12; Pss. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4). The metaphor of the soul or spirit as a bird is referenced in the description of the Holy Spirit descending like a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). The observation that birds “do not sow or reap” is employed as an image of worry-free living (Luke 12:24; cf. Job 38:41; Ps. 147:9). Jesus’ reference to “when the rooster crows” (Mark 13:35) is not strictly literal but rather refers to a watch of the night: the quarter of the night after midnight.
The prominence of sacrificial birds (especially doves and pigeons) in ritual literature indicates that they were likely raised for such purposes in ancient Israel. All birds could be eaten except those listed as unclean in Lev. 11:13–19 (twenty species) and Deut. 14:12–18 (twenty-one species). Generally speaking, birds of prey and those that feed on carrion or fish were considered unclean. Birds often served as food for the poor (Matt. 10:29–31; Luke 12:6–7). Poor people could offer birds as a substitute for expensive livestock (Lev. 5:7; 12:8; 14:21–22; cf. Luke 2:24), while the poorest of the poor were permitted to bring grain (Lev. 5:11). Finally, in one purgation ritual a live bird is used to carry away impurities (Lev. 14:52–53; cf. 16:22).
The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:34), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.
The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).
Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).
The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).
During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).
Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).
The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.
Basic manufacturing material of fine-grained soil mixed with impurities. It is pliable when moist and hardens when baked. It was used for pottery (Lev. 6:28; 11:33; 15:12; Num. 5:17; Jer. 19:1; 32:14; 2Cor. 4:7), building material (Lev. 14:42; Nah. 3:19), molds (1Kings 7:46), sculpture (Dan. 2:33), and writing tablets (Ezek. 4:1). Clay is used metaphorically to illustrate weakness (Job 4:19; 13:12; 27:16) or lowliness of purpose (Lam. 4:2; 2Cor. 4:7; 2Tim. 2:20). The potter and his clay are likened to God and human creation (Job 10:9; 33:6; Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer. 18:4; Rom. 9:21).
Israel shared the cosmology of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. This worldview understood the earth as a “disk” upon the primeval waters (Job 38:13; Isa. 40:22), with the earth having four rims or “corners” (Ps. 135:7; Isa. 11:12). These rims were sealed at the horizon to prevent the influx of cosmic waters. God speaks to Job about the dawn grasping the edges of the earth and shaking the evil people out of it (Job 38:1213).
Israel’s promised land was built on the sanctuary prototype of Eden (Gen. 13:10; Deut. 6:3; 31:20); both were defined by divine blessing, fertility, legal instruction, secure boundaries, and were orienting points for the world. Canaan was Israel’s new paradise, “flowing with milk and honey” (Exod. 3:8; Num. 13:27). Conversely, the lack of fertile land was tantamount to insecurity and judgment. As Eden illustrated for Israel, any rupture of relationship with God brought alienation between humans, God, and the land; this could ultimately bring exile, as an ethically nauseated land “vomits” people out (Lev. 18:25, 28; 20:22; see also Deut. 4; 30).
For Israel, land involved both God’s covenant promise (Gen. 15:18–21; 35:9–12) and the nation’s faithful obedience (Gen. 17:1; Exod. 19:5; 1Kings 2:1–4). Yahweh was the earth’s Lord (Ps. 97:5), Judge (Gen. 18:25), and King (Ps. 47:2, 7). Both owner and giver, he was the supreme landlord, who gifted the land to Israel (Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Josh. 22:19; Ps. 24:1). The land was God’s “inheritance” to give (1Sam. 26:19; 2Sam. 14:16; Ps. 79:1; Jer. 2:7). The Levites, however, did not receive an allotment of land as did the other tribes, since God was their “portion” (Num. 18:20; Ps. 73:26). Israel’s obedience was necessary both to enter and to occupy the land (Deut. 8:1–3; 11:8–9; 21:1; 27:1–3). Ironically, the earth swallowed rebellious Israelites when they accused Moses of bringing them “up out of a land flowing with milk and honey” (Num. 16:13). As the conquest shows, however, no tribe was completely obedient, taking its full “inheritance” (Josh. 13:1).
“The fall” refers to the events of the first human couple’s sin in the garden of Eden (Gen. 23). Although the word “fall” does not occur in the account, Christians have used the term to describe it, taking their cues from Paul’s writings (esp. Rom. 5:12–21). The term is important because it reflects an interpretation that the events in the garden are the entrance of human sin and that the sin has universal effects on humankind.
Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.
Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).
Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.
Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.
Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1124). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but, because of God’s nature and mercy, sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
A controlled point of entry into an otherwise enclosed area such as a city (Gen. 34:24; Ps. 122:2; Acts 9:24), camp (Exod. 32:2627), tabernacle court (Exod. 35:17), palace (2Kings 11:19), temple area (Jer. 36:10; Ezek. 40), prison (Acts 12:10), or house (Acts 10:17).
In the OT, the city gate has a central role in that city’s military, economic, judicial, political, and religious aspects of life. A key component of the defense system of a city, the gate consists of doors fortified with bars (Judg. 16:3; Ps. 107:16; Nah. 3:13) and keeps invading armies out while also serving as the point of departure and return for the city’s army (2Sam. 18:4; cf. God the warrior entering in Ps. 24:7–8). The gate also may serve as the location where news of the battle is delivered (1Sam. 4:18; 2Sam. 18:24). The destruction of the city gate usually means the destruction of the city (Isa. 24:12).
In the economic life of the city, the gate functions as a place of commerce (Gen. 23; 2Kings 7:1) and music (Lam. 5:14). At the entrance to the city gate, the city elders assembled daily to hear cases and render judgment (Job 29:7; Prov. 24:7). Along with the elders, there might be additional witnesses (Ruth 4:1–11; Ps. 69:12). For criminal cases, the gate may also be the location where punishment is enacted (Deut. 17:5; 22:24). Thus, the gate is to be a place where all people can come to obtain justice (2Sam. 15:2–4; Isa. 29:21; Amos 5:15). The gate may hold a seat reserved for the king (2Sam. 19:8) as well as the king’s officials (Esther 2:19–21; 3:2–3). The city gate might also contain shrines to various gods (2Kings 23:8; cf. Acts 14:13).
Some references to gates refer to those of the temple area (Ezek. 44; 46; Pss. 100:4; 118:19–20). In Ezek. 48 the temple area is to have twelve gates, each named after a tribe of Israel (Ezek. 48:30–35; cf. Rev. 21:12–25). The prophet Jeremiah proclaims the word of the Lord from both the city gate(s) (Jer. 17:19–27) and the temple gate(s) (7:1–4).
In the NT, Jesus raises the dead son of a widow at the town gate (Luke 7:11–17) and heals a lame man near the Sheep Gate (John 5:1–15). Peter heals a crippled man near the temple gate (Acts 3:1–10). Jesus mentions gates in his teaching, including a call to enter through the narrow gate of life (Matt. 7:13–14), and his parable of the sheep and the gate, in which Jesus refers to himself as the gate (John 10:1–18). See also City Gates.
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).
In the OT, “high places” were places of worship, probably so named because hilltops were the preferred sites for such shrines (though alternative explanations are offered). They do not imply the presence of a temple building, but rather might consist simply of outdoor altars and could be associated with other religious objects such as sacred stones and fertility symbols (1Kings 14:23). In the only description we have of the appearance of high places, they are disparaged as being “gaudy” (Ezek. 16:16).
Before Israel entered the land of Canaan, such shrines were centers of pagan fertility religion, the worship of the Baals. The Israelites were instructed that, on entering the land, they were to destroy all such shrines (Num. 33:52; Deut. 33:29). This they failed to do, and although not every Israelite high place had Canaanite origins, it appears that many did. Perhaps because of their Canaanite background and the continued presence of some Canaanite worshipers in Israel’s midst, the high places, while notionally becoming places of Yahweh worship for Israel (2Kings 17:32; 18:22; 2Chron. 33:17), were places where this worship was debased by pagan associations and practices, even to the extent of child sacrifice (Jer. 7:31) and prostitution (if this is to be taken literally in Ezek. 16:16; 43:7). The worship of Yahweh at these shrines became indistinguishable from Baal worship (2Kings 17:11; 23:5), and some were specifically erected to foreign gods (1Kings 11:7; Jer. 32:35). While perhaps deliberately not called a “high place,” the altar that Elijah repaired on Mount Carmel became a focal point for calling for an end to such syncretism (1Kings 18).
At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).
A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenly beings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudes of heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but “host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrew phrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of the heavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and an army comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander of the Israelite forces (Josh. 5:1315; Judg. 5:23). There are times when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’s military retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heaven against Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battle against the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to stand still (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages, the phrase may have had some military background.
The most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven” is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likely that from their association with God’s council, these celestial elements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart from God. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer to the stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars in the sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starry hosts” (2Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers to the totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenly array”]; cf. 2Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distribution of the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narrating the Assyrian period (2Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer. 19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between the worship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalage in the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelite religion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—that is, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period due to the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship of the astral powers.
A compound of aromatic spices closely related to the daily life of Israel. It became synonymous with “frankincense” at a later time. Aromatic spices were used in Israel for cosmetics (Prov. 7:17; Song 5:5) and for medical (Jer. 8:22; 46:11; 51:8) purposes but occupied a special place in Israelite worship when used as incense. Incense was professionally compounded (Exod. 30:3435) and was offered on the golden altar by the high priest twice a day (Exod. 30:7–8; cf. Luke 1:8–11) and on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12–13; cf. 10:1–2). Prayers offered with the smoke of the incense guaranteed acceptance by God (Deut. 33:10; cf. Gen. 8:21; Exod. 29:18; Ezek. 20:41). In Ps. 141:2, prayers are said to ascend to God like incense, providing a background to the book of Revelation, where incense represents the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4).
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.
Jeremiah is a complex book with many themes. One of the central ideas, however, is covenant. The Bible often uses the idea of a covenant to describe the relationship between God and his people. A covenant is a divinely initiated and defined agreement. God makes promises and calls on his people to observe certain requirements. Research has found that the biblical covenants are close in form and concept to ancient Near Eastern treaties between the kings of superpowers and those of much less powerful nations (vassal treaties). The powerful, sovereign king announces the law to the vassal, and it is accompanied by curses and blessings. If the vassal obeys, then the king gives a reward, but if the vassal disobeys, then the king issues punishment.
There is a series of covenantal relationships between God and his people (Noah [Gen. 9]; Abraham [Gen. 12:13; 15; 17]; Moses [Exod. 19–24]; David [2Sam. 7]), but most relevant for our understanding of Jeremiah is the covenant with Moses as reaffirmed in Deuteronomy. The Mosaic covenant emphasizes law (see Deut. 5–26) and has an extensive section of curses and blessings (Deut. 27–28).
Jeremiah and many of the other prophets may be styled “lawyers of the covenant.” God sends them to his people when they disobey the law. Their job is to warn the people to change their lives and live in conformity with God’s will or else the curses of the covenant will come into effect.
Jeremiah’s oracles focus on warning the people that they are covenant breakers, particularly in the matter of worshiping false gods (Jer. 10–11). The hope is that the people will repent and thus avoid the most extreme punishment. But it is not only the judgment oracles that are related to the covenant; so too are the salvation oracles. In Jer. 31:31–34 the prophet announces that God will replace the old covenant with a new one, which will be more internal, more intense, and more intimate.
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.
The fourth son of Jacob (Gen. 35:23). The meaning of his name is debated, but his mother, Leah, links it to “praise” (29:35). He persuaded his brothers to sell Joseph instead of killing him (37:2627). He also guaranteed the safety of Benjamin when the brothers returned to Egypt to purchase food (43:1–10). In spite of his despicable behavior with his daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. 38), his father’s blessing included the promise of kingship (49:10).
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.
Biblical Lebanon is the region that consists of two parallel mountain ranges north of Israel, whose boundaries are very similar to modern-day Lebanon. The south-southwest range is called “Lebanon,” and the north-northeast range “Anti-Lebanon” (i.e., “all Lebanon to the east” [cf. Josh. 13:5]). Between the two ranges is the Valley of Lebanon, where the city of Baal Gad was located (Josh. 11:17; 12:7). At the southern end is Mount Hermon, where the snowcapped peaks probably gave rise to its name, which in Hebrew means “to be white” (Jer. 18:14).
Important to the present discussion is the metaphorical use of the term “Lebanon,” particularly in the OT, where the term occurs over seventy times (the name does not appear in the NT). First, associated with the mountainous range in the region, Lebanon evokes images of glory, fertility, and abundance. For example, the high elevation gives Lebanon the sense of majesty and glory (Isa. 35:2; 60:13; cf. 2Kings 19:23), which is further equated with the glory of Jerusalem (Isa. 60:13; Ezek. 17:3, 22; cf. Isa. 10:34; Zech. 11:1) and the restored Israel (Zech. 10:1011; cf. Jer. 22:6). The melting snows, plus the annual rainfall, ensure abundance and fertility (Ps. 104:16; Song 4:15; Jer. 18:14; cf. Ps. 72:16). The glory of Lebanon is linked with Sharon, Bashan, and Carmel in the territory of Israel (Isa. 2:13; 35:2; cf. Isa. 33:9; Nah. 1:4).
Second, of all the coniferous trees in the forest of Lebanon, cedars receive the greatest attention and have been regularly used to indicate stature and beauty. For example, their sweet smell describes the desirability of renewed Israel (Song 4:11; Hos. 14:7), and their magnificence reminds one of the beautiful trees in Eden (Ps. 104:16; Ezek. 31:9, 16). These towering evergreens are a fitting image of humankind. The righteous people are compared to a cedar of Lebanon (Ps. 92:12–15); the legs of the bridegroom are as noble as the cedars (Song 5:15); and even kings, both Davidic (Isa. 14:8; Ezek. 17:3) and foreign (Isa. 10:34; Ezek. 31:3–18), as well as their subjects (Judg. 9:15), are likened to the cedars of Lebanon. Quite often, they are symbols of political entities (Isa. 2:13; 40:16), such as Judah (Ezek. 17:3), Assyria (Ezek. 31:3), and Tyre (Ezek. 27:5).
Third, Lebanon, together with its forest, is used to depict negative images. For example, all its glories and riches combined are not enough for a sacrificial offering to God (Isa. 40:16). The barrenness of Lebanon is the result of God’s judgment (Isa. 33:9). Prophetic oracles are often associated with Lebanon. The cutting down or withering of the choicest trees is spoken of as judgment against the proud (Isa. 2:13; 33:9; Ezek. 31:15; Nah. 1:4), against the wicked nation of Tyre (Ezek. 27:1–9), and against Judah (Jer. 22:6–7).
The plagues unleashed against Egypt (Exod. 7:111:10) demonstrated to Pharaoh (Exod. 9:14), to the Israelites (Exod. 10:2), and to “all the earth” (Exod. 9:16; Rom. 9:17) God’s sovereign control over nature on behalf of his covenant people. Both the timing and the intensity of the plagues indicate that these were not random natural phenomena. The unfolding of the whole series of plagues would have taken at least nine months.
A broken piece of pottery that is essentially useless. Because of the easy availability and cheap cost of pottery in the ancient Near East and pottery’s relative fragility, broken pottery was common. Potsherds are mentioned a few times in the Bible. Job used a potsherd to scrape his skin when he was infected with skin sores (Job 2:8). The gate near the Valley of Ben Hinnom was called the “Potsherd Gate” (Jer. 19:2). It is at this place that Jeremiah smashed a clay pot into potsherds to warn the people of God’s wrath.
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.
The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1Sam. 7:3; 2Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1Thess. 1:9; James 4:810).
In the OT, the “rock” (sela’, tsur) is an image of inaccessibility and so of refuge from danger (Isa. 7:19), but rocks will not provide refuge on the day of God’s wrath (Isa. 2:10, 19, 21; cf. Rev. 6:1516). A great rock providing needed shade (Isa. 32:2) is a variation on this theme of protection. By extension, the image is applied to God himself in poetry (e.g., 2Sam. 22:2; Ps. 31:3, in both cases parallel with “fortress”). God as the “Rock” is the object of trust (2Sam. 22:3). This quality is an aspect of his incomparability: “And who is the Rock except our God?” (2Sam. 22:32).
Ancient accounts and remains (e.g., the bas relief from Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh depicting the siege of Lachish) and the biblical record (2Kings 25:12; Ezek. 4:2) reveal the siege techniques of the period. Spies sought any strategic weakness (Judg. 1:22–26). The city’s water supply was interrupted (2Sam. 12:27). People were prevented from entering or leaving. An attempt was made to starve the inhabitants into surrendering. The besieging army might use siege engines, scaling ladders, earthen ramps, and battering rams and make tunnels under walls. Although scholars refer to the Assyrian “siege” of Jerusalem in 701 BC, Isa. 36–37 and 2Kings 18–19 indicate that the city was only blockaded, and the word used in Isa. 1:8 (netsurah [NIV: “under siege”]) means “watched, guarded.”
The way the word “soul” is used in English does not align well with any single Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible. It is widely accepted that the biblical view (both OT and NT) of humanity does not recognize sharp boundaries between body and soul (bipartite anthropology) or between body, soul, and spirit (tripartite). The human being is, according to biblical teaching, a psychosomatic unity.
Topheth, whose name is associated with the Hebrew word for “spit,” was located in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to the immediate southwest of Jerusalem. At times, it served as the city dump, where trash was burned. In the NT period, the valley was known as Gehenna, which was associated with hell. Josiah had destroyed this place because it was the location of the false worship of the foreign god Molek (2Kings 23:1011), but the idolatrous worship site must have been rebuilt. In the time of Jeremiah, some Israelites performed child sacrifice in this location, so the prophet announced judgment against them (Jer. 7:30–34; 19:6–15).
There is no mention of wheels in the NT, while four different types of wheels are described in the OT. They include a potter’s wheel, a chariot wheel, a wheel used for processing grain, and the wheel referred to in Ezekiel’s theophany. The potter’s wheel was a simple device for creating pottery that was symmetrical and strong. Jeremiah observed a potter working with a pottery wheel (Jer. 18:3). Chariot wheels may have been invented by the Sumerians and were a common part of warfare during most of the OT. These wheels were either a solid wheel made of two or three planks of wood held together with wooden pegs or the more common wheel-and-spoke assembly. The spoke assembly was favored as iron and other metal technology was developed (Exod. 14:25). This sort of wheel also functioned in the temple to hold the lavers (1Kings 7:3033). Wheels also were used to crush grain in order to separate the husk from the harvested grain, to grind grain into flour, and to extract oil from olives (Isa. 28:28). There is much speculation about the specifications of the phantasmagorical wheels in Ezekiel’s visions, which include the enigmatic description of a wheel intersecting a wheel (Ezek. 1:15–16). It is clear from this description that the wheels are intended to guide a vehicle that can go in any direction instantly, but nothing else is known about them.
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).
The words “wrath” and “anger” are used in Bible translations for a variety of Hebrew and Greek words that refer to the disposition of someone (including God) toward persons (including oneself [Gen. 45:5]) or situations considered to be seriously displeasing. There may be degrees of anger (Zech. 1:15), and it may be accompanied by other sentiments such as distress (Gen. 45:5), hatred (Job 16:9), jealousy (Rom. 10:19), grief (Mark 3:5), and vengeance (Mic. 5:15).
Anger may be a proper response to sin or a sin-distorted world, as seen in, for example, Moses’ reaction to the golden calf (Exod. 32:19). Paul envisages an anger that does not necessarily involve sin (Eph. 4:26). Jesus is said to display anger at the willful stubbornness of his contemporaries (Mark 3:5), and his response to the mourning for Lazarus (John 11:33) might be rendered as “outrage,” an anger directed not so much at the mourners as at the ugliness of death, the consequence of sin, and with thoughts, perhaps, of his own impending death necessitated by this fallen world.
On the other hand, a display of anger may be the result of distorted perceptions or values (Gen. 4:56). A tendency to anger in oneself needs to be kept in check (James 1:19) and in others needs to be handled prudently (Prov. 15:1). Unchecked, anger may lead to violence and murder (Gen. 49:6). In several NT lists anger is associated with such other sinful behavior as quarreling, jealousy, selfishness, slander, malice, gossip, conceit, strife, idolatry, sorcery, and bitterness (2Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8).
In Ps. 76:10 NLT (cf. ESV, NASB, NRSV) God is said to cause human anger to bring him praise (but see NIV, NET, where it is God’s wrath against human beings that brings him praise). Perhaps an instance of this is seen in Rom. 13:4–5, where the wrath of the civil authority serves to maintain justice under God.
Direct Matches
Basic manufacturing material of fine-grained soil mixed withimpurities. It is pliable when moist and hardens when baked. It wasused for pottery (Lev. 6:28; 11:33; 15:12; Num. 5:17; Jer. 19:1;32:14; 2 Cor. 4:7), building material (Lev. 14:42; Nah. 3:19),molds (1 Kings 7:46), sculpture (Dan. 2:33), and writing tablets(Ezek. 4:1). Clay is used metaphorically to illustrate weakness (Job4:19; 13:12; 27:16) or lowliness of purpose (Lam. 4:2; 2 Cor.4:7; 2 Tim. 2:20). The potter and his clay are likened to Godand human creation (Job 10:9; 33:6; Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer.18:4; Rom. 9:21).
An organ for hearing, and a symbol of understanding andobedience. Common life in ancient society relied on the spoken wordas much as, if not more than, the written word. For this reason, theear represents more than just a body part. The ear symbolizesunderstanding (Isa. 64:4). Twice the book of Job compares the ear’sdiscernment of words to the tongue’s tasting of food (Job12:11; 34:3). The ear also symbolizes the will to obey (Deut. 29:4)or disobey (Prov. 28:9). Because of the ear’s association withobedience, the application of blood or oil to the right ear was anact of consecration in Israel’s worship (Exod. 29:20; Lev.14:14, 17). Ears are also ascribed to God in a figurative way (Pss.18:6; 94:9). To the obedient, God listens compassionately (2Chron.7:15); and to the disobedient, God acts as if deaf (Deut. 1:45). Attimes, the news of calamity is meant to make the ears of Israeltingle (1Sam. 3:11; 2Kings 21:12; Jer. 19:3). Elsewhere,the irony of idol worship is illustrated by idols that have ears butcannot hear (Pss. 115:6; 135:17). Jesus repeatedly calls out to thosewho have ears to hear (Matt. 11:15; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8). This appealis also repeated at the end of each message to the seven churches ofAsia (Rev. 1:18–3:22). The apostle Paul warns Timothy aboutthose who have “itching” ears, those who find teachers tosupport their own false notions (2Tim. 4:3–4).
Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is underGod’s command. The Hebrew word ruakhsometimes is translated as “wind” but other times canmean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen.1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma,hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is mostoften used in the NT to denote wind.
OldTestament. Throughoutthe OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind instorehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God useswind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends awind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark torecede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea duringthe exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail infrom the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness(Num. 11:31).
Windcan also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plagueupon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land;afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea(Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from thedesert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse,killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In thebook of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’sship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint anddesire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject ofwind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6;Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).
Whilea single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6),many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of theheavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the southwind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing agarden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west windspecifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the eastwind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with militaryterms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatterships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) orshrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuingthe east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, thefour winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bringlife (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan.7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).
Godrides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2Sam.22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 thewinds are called God’s “messengers.” This imageryis strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite godBaal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind(Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent uponwind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh inthe whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successfulcontest against the prophets of Baal (1Kings 19:11–12).
Thewisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besidesits power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind isthe inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov.11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under thesun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Emptytalk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blowaway chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps.1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as ametaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).
NewTestament.In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus byemphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27).Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from thefour winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit.Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John theBaptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt.11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind.It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally,a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a soundlike a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills allthose in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).
Definitionof Terms
Theterm “pagan” has two separate but related definitions inthe English language, both of which are somewhat misleading whenapplied to religions in the ancient Near East. The first definitiondefines a pagan as someone who follows a less-established religion ora person who is outside the mainstream of belief within a givensociety. Applying this definition to an ancient Near Eastern religionis somewhat misleading because often within biblical society theJewish or Christian belief system was the religion that was outsidethe mainstream. Being outside the mainstream certainly was a fact oflife for first-century Christians, who often were persecuted as ifthey were atheists and for their failure to acknowledge a pantheon ofgods, which was a mainstream belief. In OT society the competingreligions, especially the Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons,certainly were more widely accepted and followed. Even withinIsraelite society these non-Israelite religions offered a viablealternative to the religion of Yahweh. Thus, if one were to use thisdefinition either in the OT or the NT, it likely would need to beapplied to the religion of the Jews and Christians and not theprevailing religions of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Greeks,or the Romans.
Thesecond English definition of the term “pagan” involvesthe worship of the gods or forces of nature that control the world.This definition is applied specifically to agrarian societies, wherethe changing of seasons, the bringing of favorable weather andgrowing conditions for the crops, the possibility for prosperity thatgood weather brings, and a general desire for fertility are part ofthe religious understanding and belief system. While this definitioncertainly applies to many of the non-Israelite religions followed bythe Israelites’ neighbors and to some of the Greeks and Romansof the NT, it also would apply to many of the followers of Yahweh inthe OT who saw Yahweh as the God of the mountains and storms indirect conflict with the Baal myth, which ascribed these traits toBaal (see below). Therefore, it is prudent to remember that the label“pagan gods” is anachronistic and should be used withcare when discussing the religions described in the Bible.
Ona related note, the terminology of “idolatry” is alsooften misunderstood. Most of the non-Israelite religions discussed inthe Bible would have understood the images of their gods to berepresentations of the deity (or even a throne or meeting place forthe god) rather than an object of worship in its own right. Whilethey would have believed that the god dwelled in the object and waspresent when worship was being performed, they would not havebelieved that the object was the god. Most of the idols made in theancient Near East are indistinguishable from one another unless oneobserves their specific weapons. This, coupled with the idol’santhropomorphic representation, rather than a heavenlyrepresentation, suggests that the concern for early worshipers wasnot to worship an inanimate image, but rather to see a representationof the god who indwelled the image if worshiped correctly. It was thepresence of the god that was desired. Thus, the prohibition againstimages in the OT is a prohibition against trying to depict Yahweh inany physical form.
Whendealing with the non-Israelite gods of the Bible, it is helpful todivide them into historical periods. Within the OT, the majorgroupings of non-Israelite gods should include the gods of theCanaanites and the gods of the Babylonians (which are very similar tothe gods of the Assyrians). To a lesser degree the gods of thePhilistines, the Egyptians, and the Persians can also be considered.In the NT, the gods of the Greeks and the Romans (which often areassimilated Greek gods with new names) can be considered. Along withthese somewhat artificial historical divisions are innumerablepersonal gods and local gods worshiped by small groups of people oreven by a single town or village. For example, Gen. 31:30 referencesLaban’s gods, which Rachel steals when she leaves home totravel with Jacob. These personal gods likely played a huge role inthe day-to-day life of the average person, but most often they arelost to history. Similarly in the NT, the mystery religions of theGreeks and the Romans likely played an important role in the lives ofmany people, but they are difficult to reconstruct because of thelimited amount of documentation that has survived.
CanaanitePantheon
Thereis considerable overlap between the Canaanite pantheon and those ofthe Mesopotamian cultures, and often this can create some confusionabout the deities being discussed, especially their names andfunctions. Further complicating matters, the descriptions of godswithin the Mesopotamian pantheons often have fluid identities, asdifferent textual traditions conflict with each other at times. Boththe Canaanite and the Babylonian pantheons borrow heavily from theSumerian pantheon, which adds both to their similarities and to thepossibility of confusion.
Withoutquestion, the most important god within the Canaanite pantheon wasBaal. The story of Baal, often called the “Baal Cycle,”describes the life and deeds of Baal. The cult of Baal was afertility religion, and all the events of Baal’s life wereconnected to the changing seasons and nature’s fertility. TheBaal Cycle also explained how the worship of Baal affected theagricultural success of farmers. This detailed story of Baal was allbut unknown, except for a few details that could be gleaned from theBible, prior to the accidental discovery of the city of Ugarit andits extensive library in 1928 by a farmer plowing his field. The cityof Ugarit appears to have been a major trading center between theyears of about 1450 and 1200 BC. Besides Baal, other importantdeities within the pantheon were El, the elderly, long-bearded fathergod; Asherah, El’s wife, or occasionally portrayed as Baal’swife or sister; and Mot, the god of death, usually represented as asnake.
Baalwas the god of weather, especially thunder, lightning, and rain (Baalis almost always depicted with a lightning bolt in one hand and a rodof power in the other). Other representations or symbols of Baalinclude the bull (the strongest and most powerful animal of theancient Near East), water, mist, dew, grain, oil, and any othersymbol of fertility. Worship of Baal was intended to keep him happyin order to assure the coming of spring (preferably, early), thenecessary rain for crops, and finally the lengthening of summer sothat two crops could be planted and harvested. The second crop, whichoften was the crop that a farmer could sell for a profit (the firstbeing reserved for the farmer’s own food), was especially tiedto the favor of Baal. Baal was worshiped not only in hope ofa*gricultural prosperity but also for family fertility in terms ofchildren and for help in battle. The primary means for producing andkeeping the favor of Baal was by offering the firstfruits of anyharvest to him. When the first portion of a crop was harvested, itwas expected that a portion of that harvest (most often a tithe) beoffered to Baal in hopes of receiving his favor and extending thegrowing season. Not only were the first of the crops to be given toBaal but also the firstborn of all herded animals. It was also acommon practice for the firstborn of a family to be given to Baal inhuman sacrifice. Baal is often referred to as Molek in the Bible(e.g., Jer. 19) when describing human sacrifice. Another practice ofBaal worship was ritual sexual intercourse between a worshiper and apriest or a priestess. This ritual sexual activity was thought toincrease the fertility of the worshiper, thereby increasing thechances of having more children.
Apparentlyfor much of the history of Israel, especially during the monarchy,Baal worship offered an enticing alternative to the worship ofYahweh. In fact, the stories of Elijah and Elisha serve as a directpolemic against Baal worship. Most of the stories of Elijah andElisha use the symbols of Baal to demonstrate that Yahweh is muchstronger than Baal. By the time of the first century AD, Baal worshipwas a thing of the past, but some vestiges of the worship remained.For example, in the Gospels Jesus says that a person cannot worshipboth “God and money” (KJV: “mammon”) (Matt.6:24; Luke 16:13). The Greek word translated “money,”mamōnas, is borrowed from Aramaic and actually refers to theworship of Baal, but by Jesus’ time it had evolved to take onthe more generic definition “prosperity.”
Alongwith Baal, the worship of Asherah, a female member of the pantheon,was common. Although scholars are not completely sure of its form, itis believed that the reference in the OT to “Asherah poles”was likely a reference to a phallic symbol that represented fertility(Judg. 6:26; 1Kings 14:23). Recently, several references toAsherah have been discovered in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud innortheastern Sinai, dated to about the eighth century. Theseinscriptions say that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh rather thanBaal, providing further evidence for the amount of syncretism presentin Israel during the monarchy. Another female deity, Ashtoreth (knownalso by her Mesopotamian name, “Ishtar”), is called“Queen of Heaven” several times in the book of Jeremiah(7:18; 44:17–19,25).
Inrelationship to the infiltration of Baal worship into the northernkingdom is the debate about the nature of the “sin of Jeroboam”that was instituted by JeroboamI when he, along with the tennorthern tribes, ceded from Israel (1Kings 12:25–33). Atissue is whether Jeroboam was instituting a new religion based on thecalves, thus becoming syncretistic with these tribes’ northernPhoenician neighbors (which would have been tantamount to introducingBaal worship into Israel), or simply rejecting the centrality ofJerusalem for Yahweh worship (which only a few years before had beencentralized in Jerusalem by Solomon’s temple, resulting in thedisenfranchisem*nt of the Levites outside Jerusalem). Clearly, thesouthern kingdom viewed the events as apostasy, but whether thenorthern tribes did is unclear. Amos, for example, seems to focus hiscriticism of the cult at Bethel not on the worship itself but ratheron the hypocrisy of the worshipers, who were not following the law asprescribed in the Torah.
BabylonianPantheon
Althoughdebate continues over the exact relationship between the two, theBabylonian pantheon had many elements similar to the Canaanitepantheon. There are dozens of primary documents about the religion ofBabylon; the most important of them include the Enuma Elish, acreation story and apologetic for Marduk the chief of gods; theAtrahasis Epic, which has a version of the flood story in it; and theEpic of Gilgamesh, which describes the quest for eternal life by KingGilgamesh. Within the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk is the chief ofgods, who is also the patron god of Babylonia. The Enuma Elish, whichdescribes the creation of the world, deals primarily with theascension of Marduk to the role of chief god by destroying the forcesof chaos represented by the monster Tiamat and bringing order to boththe pantheon and the natural world. Marduk, like Baal, had retainedthe most powerful cosmic weapons, which include water, rain, and war.The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the journey of King Gilgamesh, who ispart human and part divine, in search of immortality. During thecourse of his trip, he learns that eternal life is reserved for thegods, and humans must make their mark on the world by what they doduring their lives. The Babylonian religion and pantheon exerted itsstrongest influence on Israel during the exile. The biblical textclearly has been influenced by these Babylonian beliefs. However, theBible consistently presents these viewpoints as contrary to the trueworship of Yahweh and insists that only Yahweh deserves worship asthe true creator of the world, vanquisher of chaos, and provider ofprosperity and life.
OtherAncient Near Eastern Pantheons
TheEgyptian gods are mentioned only briefly in the Bible. The most overtreferences to the gods of Egypt are found in the story of the tenplagues, which most scholars believe was a direct attack on thedeities of Egypt by Yahweh. It is unclear if the calf described inExod. 32 should be understood as an Egyptian god, a completely new ordifferent god, or as a forbidden representation of Yahweh.
Littleis known about the Philistine pantheon of gods, but it appears to bequite similar to the Canaanite pantheon (if not the same with localvariations). The Philistines’ chief god, referred to in theBible as “Dagon” (Judg. 16:23; 1Sam. 5:2–7;1Chron. 10:10), likely also went by the name “Baal-Zebul”(“Lord Prince”), which in the OT is mocked by beingchanged to “Baal-Zebub” (“Lord of the Flies”)(2Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). In the NT, this god is recalledwhen the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Satan (Matt.12:24; Luke 11:15 [Gk. Beelzeboul]). Because the Philistines wereknown as the Sea Peoples, it is not surprising that this deity hadseveral fishlike qualities (including a fish tail).
NewTestament Religion
Inthe NT, the Greek pantheon that was subsumed by the Roman pantheonwas the common religious expression of the day. Like other ancientpantheons, these pantheons tried to explain the natural world by theinvolvement of various deities in nature. Proof that Jews living inthe province of Judah were under constant pressure to assimilate tothe Greek religion is provided in the reports of the books ofMaccabees that describe the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids inwhat was essentially a religious war against assimilation. In theGospels, little is said about the Greek or Roman pantheons, but thebook of Acts contains several reports of Paul’s interactionwith the Greeks and their religious practices. Especially notable isPaul’s interaction with the Athenians when he debatedphilosophers who were followers of the “Unknown God”(Acts 17:23). Three other deities are named in Acts, includingArtemis in Ephesus (Acts 19:24, 27–28, 34–35), whom theRomans called “Diana,” and Zeus and Hermes (Acts14:12–13), called “Jupiter” and “Mercury”by the Romans, whom Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for in Lystrawhen Paul preached and healed a crippled man.
Summary
Theproblem of God’s people Israel worshiping other gods permeatesmost of biblical history. These reports range over time from theearly story of Rachel in Genesis, to the period of the judges whenMicah’s images (Judg. 17:1–6) and Gideon’s ephod(Judg. 8:26–27) were worshiped, to when Solomon and his wiveswere worshiping foreign gods (1Kings 11:5–8), to the timeof Ahab when all Israel followed Baal, whom Elijah vanquished onMount Carmel (1Kings 18:16–46). Depending on when onedates the book of Deuteronomy, the strong prohibitions againstidolatry either went unheeded (if Moses wrote the book) or were aculminating statement of the anti-idolatry Deuteronomistic writerjust before the exile. There is considerable debate about when Israelbecame an exclusively monotheistic nation (if it ever did), but bythe eighth century BC, Isaiah and Amos castigate worshipers of thesefalse gods. Clearly, by the time of Jeremiah, some factions withinIsrael (the prophet included) have begun to question whether the godsof the other nations even exist (Jer. 2:28). Finally, with thedestruction of the temple in Jerusalem, ironically, the worship ofother gods is ended. It is certain that by the time of the firstcentury AD, the evolution to a monotheistic view is complete, andPaul can claim that an “idol is nothing” (1Cor.8:4), and that any sin is tantamount to idolatry (Eph.5:5).
A container used to hold various liquids. The term “flask”(Heb. pak) occurs three times in the NIV (1Sam. 10:1; 2Kings9:1, 3 [ASV: “vial”]), referring to a small container ofliquid, often perfume. In these cases, the flask contained oil usedto anoint a king. Other English versions (RSV, ESV) also use “flask”to render the Hebrew baqbuq (Jer. 19:1, 10 [NIV, “jar”]),which was a container larger than the pak and the Greek alabastros(Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3; Luke 7:37), an alabaster jar that normallyheld precious contents. Both the baqbuq and the alabastros werebroken in the biblical narratives: the former as a sign of theimpending destruction of Jerusalem, and the latter in order to anointJesus.
Contrary to common uses of the word “forgiveness,”which are highly influenced by modernity’s interest inpsychology, the biblical concept identifies forgiveness as atheological issue to be understood in relational categories.Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings(emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. Itis about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costlyand painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon”may prove more helpful.
Terminology
Principally,God forgives by removing the guilt from transgressors and therebyreleasing them from their deserved penalty. The OT term kipper speaksto the covering of sin (Deut. 21:8; Ps. 78:38; Jer. 18:23), and itsuse in connection with sacrifice signifies the idea of atonement.Like salakh, it communicates exclusively God’s forgiveness ofhumans (Num. 30:5; Amos 7:2). The term nasa’ refers to theremoval of guilt, God lifting the burden of sin from the sinner(Exod. 32:32; Num. 14:19), but it also can be used of forgivenessbetween humans (Gen. 50:17).
Inthe NT, verbs such as aphiēmi (noun aphesis) and apolyōconnote the idea of sending away or releasing, whereas (epi)kalyptōexpresses the idea of covering. Other terms, such as paresis(“passing over” [Rom. 3:25]) further extend the idea ofGod’s forgiveness: debt is canceled; God is exercising hisforbearing love. Paul’s preferred term is charizomai, whichunderscores the close correlation between grace and forgiveness (Rom.8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).
God’sForgiveness
Forgivenessexpresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardonssinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, andexpress this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter ofa human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’sloving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arisingfrom their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether donedeliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationshipwith God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy(Eph. 2:1).
Underthe Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrathamong the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’sforgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance andsacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express truerepentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that couldpurchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3;Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free,undeserved gift.
Althoughthe sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed,through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognizeconditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship,the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness withoutconsideration of the offending party.
Jesusexpresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke15:11–24). The son rebels against his father, squanders hiswealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and lovingfather remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reuniondoes not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance;then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomeshim back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive ornot forgive, but sinners can rest assured of God’srelationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance.The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “asbefore” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point thatthe older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifiesreligious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
HumanForgiveness
Thebiblical description of forgiveness between humans is rooted in thistheological understanding and articulates a clear analogy betweendivine and human forgiveness. Human relationship with God provides apattern for their relationship to each other (Matt. 5:23–24;6:12, 14–15). They forgive because they have been forgiven(Luke 7:41–47; Col. 3:13). If, or when, their forgiveness ofothers remains absent, it questions, or even jeopardizes, their ownrelationship with God (Matt. 18:22–35).
Again,since forgiveness is a theological matter, the one being wrongedremains obligated to work for the restoration of the relationshipeven if the wrongdoer does not repent. The one wronged should seek towin the offender back by showing mercy and eagerness to forgive aslearned from God (Rom. 12:19–20). There is no formula for thisGod-inspired forgiveness and no limit to its zeal. Jesus met Peter’ssuggestion that the offer of forgiveness could be exhausted with anunequivocal no (Matt. 18:21–22). The offended must offerforgiveness every time the wrongdoer asks for it (Luke 17:3–4).
Mostradical is the biblical mandate to forgive enemies. The OT oftenfollows the common ancient Near Eastern notion that enemies areexpressions of foreign deities, whom their own god(s) desires todestroy. It was therefore unimaginable that Israel (or Yahweh) shouldforgive a pagan god (e.g., Ps. 137:8–9). Jesus transforms thisthinking and makes forgiveness a Christian duty (Matt. 5:43–48;cf. Rom. 12:20).
For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and theredeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historicalacts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, andespecially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only oneGod (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because“God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himselfthrough various images and metaphors.
Imageryof God
God’scharacter and attributes are revealed primarily through the use ofimagery, the best and most understandable way to describe themysterious nature of God. Scripture employs many images to describeGod’s being and character. Some examples follow here.
Godis compared to the father who shows compassion and love to hischildren (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used bythe prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesuspredominantly uses the language of “Father” in referenceto God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationshipwith the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel evenbefore the Israelites have a human king (1Sam. 10:19).
ThePsalter exalts Yahweh as the king, acknowledging God’ssovereignty and preeminence (Pss. 5:2; 44:4; 47:6–7; 68:24;74:12; 84:3; 95:3; 145:1). God is metaphorically identified as theshepherd who takes care of his sheep, his people, to depict hisnature of provision and protection (Ps. 23:1–4). The image ofthe potter is also employed to describe the nature of God, whocreates his creatures according to his will (Jer. 18:6; Rom.9:20–23). In Hos. 2:4–3:5 God is identified as thelong-suffering husband of the adulterous wife Israel. In the settingof war, God is depicted as the divine warrior who fights against hisenemy (Exod. 15:3).
Godis also referred to as advocate (Isa. 1:18), judge (Gen. 18:25), andlawgiver (Deut. 5:1–22). The image of the farmer is alsofrequently adopted to describe God’s nature of compassionatecare, creation, providence, justice, redemption, sanctification, andmore (e.g., Isa. 5:1–7; John 15:1–12). God is oftenreferred to as the teacher (Exod. 4:15) who teaches what to do, asdoes the Holy Spirit in the NT (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit isidentified as the counselor, the helper, the witness, and the guide(John 14:16, 26; 15:26). God is often metaphorically compared tovarious things in nature, such as rock (Ps. 18:2, 31, 46), light (Ps.27:1), fire (Deut. 4:24; 9:3), lion (Hos. 11:10), and eagle (Deut.32:11–12). In particular, the Davidic psalms employ many imagesin nature—rock, fortress, shield, horn, and stronghold (e.g.,Ps. 18:2)—to describe God’s perfect protection.
Last,anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’sactivities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak ofGod: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2Chron. 16:9), mouth(Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26),shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).
Namesand Attributes of God
TheOT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used forGod, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”),often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“GodAlmighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who seesme” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive namesreveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from thepersonal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings;thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.
Themost prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which istranslated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At theburning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moseshis personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am”(Exod. 3:13–15). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH”seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh,who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the Godwho was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the Godof Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living”(Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tiedto God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life. (Seealso Names of God.)
Manyof God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “TheLord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leavethe guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their childrenfor the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”Below are further explanations of some of the representativeattributes of God.
Holiness.The moral excellence of God is the attribute that underlies all otherattributes. Thus, all God’s attributes can be modified by theadjective holy: holy love, holy justice, holy mercy, holyrighteousness, holy compassion, holy wisdom, and so forth. God is theonly supremely holy one (1Sam. 2:2; Rev. 15:4). God’sname is also holy; those who profane God’s name are condemnedas guilty (Exod. 20:7; Lev. 22:32). God is depicted as the one whohas concern for his holy name, which the Israelites profaned amongthe nations; God actively seeks to restore the holiness of hisdefiled name (Ezek. 36:21–23). God’s holiness is revealedby his righteous action (Isa. 5:16). Not only is God holy, but alsohe expects his people to be holy (Lev. 11:45; 19:2). All thesacrificial codes of Leviticus represent the moral requirements ofholiness for the worshipers. Because of God’s character ofholiness, he cannot tolerate sin in the lives of people, and hebrings judgment to those who do not repent (Hab. 1:13).
Loveand justice.Because “God is love,” no one reaches the true knowledgeof God without having love (1John 4:8). Images of the fatherand the faithful husband are frequently employed to portray God’slove (Deut. 1:31; Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:14–20; 11:1–4).God’s love was supremely demonstrated by the giving of his onlySon Jesus Christ for his people (John 3:16; Rom. 5:7–8; 1John4:9–10). God expects his people to follow the model of Christ’ssacrificial love (1John 3:16).
God’sjustice is the foundation of his moral law and his ways (Deut. 32:4;Job 34:12; Ps. 9:16; Rev. 15:3). It is also seen in his will (Ps.99:4). God loves justice and acts with justice (Ps. 33:5). God’sjustice is demonstrated in judging people according to theirdeeds—punishing wickedness and rewarding righteousness (Ezek.18:20; Ps. 58:11; Rev. 20:12–13). God establishes justice byupholding the cause of the oppressed (Ps. 103:6) and by vindicatingthose afflicted (1Sam. 25:39). God is completely impartial inimplementing justice (Job 34:18–19). As with holiness, Godrequires his people to reflect his justice (Prov. 21:3).
Godkeeps a perfect balance between the attributes of love and justice.God’s love never infringes upon his justice, and vice versa.The cross of Jesus Christ perfectly shows these two attributes in oneact. Because of his love, God gave his only Son for his people;because of his justice, God punished his Son for the sake of theirsins. The good news is that God’s justice was satisfied by thework of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:25–26).
Righteousnessand mercy.God’s righteousness shows his unique moral perfection. God’snature, actions, and laws display his character of righteousness(Pss. 19:8–9; 119:137; Dan. 9:14). “Righteousness andjustice” are the foundation of God’s throne (Ps. 89:14).God’s righteousness was especially demonstrated in the work ofJesus Christ (Rom. 3:21–22). God’s righteousness willultimately be revealed in his final judgment (Rev. 19:2; 20–22;cf. Ps. 7:11).
TheEnglish word “mercy” renders various words in theoriginal languages: in Hebrew, khesed, khanan, rakham; in Greek,charis, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchnon. English Bibles translate thesevariously as “mercy,” “compassion,” “grace,”“kindness,” or “love.” The word “mercy”is chosen here as a representative concept (cf. Ps. 86:15). God’smercy is most clearly seen in his act of forgiving sinners. In thePsalter, “Have mercy on me” is the most common form ofexpression when the psalmist entreats God’s forgiveness (Pss.41:4, 10; 51:1). God’s mercy is shown abundantly to his chosenpeople (Eph. 2:4–8). Because of his mercy, their sins areforgiven (Mic. 7:18), their punishments are withheld (Ezra 9:13), andeven sinners’ prayers are heard (Ps. 51:1; Luke 18:13–14).God is “the Father of mercies” (2Cor. 1:3 NRSV).
Godkeeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. Hisrighteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does oneoperate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy isshown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent oftheir sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.
Faithfulness.God’s faithfulness is revealed in keeping the covenant that hemade with his people. God “is the faithful God, keeping hiscovenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him andkeep his commandments” (Deut. 7:9). God is faithful to hischaracter, his name, and his word (Neh. 9:8; Ps. 106:8; 2Tim.2:13; Heb. 6:13–18). God’s faithfulness is clearly seenin fulfilling his promise (Josh. 23:14). God showed his faithfulnessby fulfilling all the promises that he made to Abraham (Gen. 12:2–3;Rom. 9:9; Gal. 4:28; Heb. 6:13–15), by having Solomon build thetemple that he promised to David (2Sam. 7:12–13; 1Kings8:17–21), and by sending his people into exile in Babylon andreturning them to their homeland (Jer. 25:8–11; Dan. 9:2–3).God’s faithfulness was ultimately demonstrated by sending JesusChrist, as was promised in the OT (Luke 24:44; Acts 13:32–33;1Cor. 15:3–8).
Goodness.Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), inhis work of creation (1Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), andin his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).
Patience.God is “slow to anger” (Exod. 34:6; Num. 14:18), which isa favorite expression for his patience (Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8;Joel 2:13). God is patient with sinful people for a long time (Acts13:18). Because of his patient character, he delays punishment (Isa.42:14). For instance, God was patient with his disobedient prophetJonah and also with the sinful people of Nineveh (Jon. 3:1–10).The purpose of God’s patience is to lead people towardrepentance (Rom.2:4).
Godof the Trinity
TheChristian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but existsin three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt.28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spiritis one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the samedivine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called“Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1;20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor.3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work ofcreation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 1:2), indwelling(John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt.28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).
God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting”(NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makessense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overallends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes toachieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’sinteraction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore,God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprisetwists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm allthis and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both humanprayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God toachieve his purposes.
Textsthat speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a newcourse of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgmentit*elf represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’sbasic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “hisstrange work ... his alien task” (Isa. 28:21),undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be graciousand compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa.54:7–8; Hos.2).
Terminology.To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham,which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. Oncertain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels inreaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18;1Sam. 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest thatGod is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret formistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakhamis used to speak of God “relenting,” it means somethingmore than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves theheart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf.Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent iswrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13;106:44–45).
Exodusand Jonah.Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted.In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf isfollowed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. Adramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, inresponse to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequenceon its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcingNineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent,which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent frombringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce,which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as anantihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God,unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link betweenhuman repentance for sin and divine relenting from previouslyannounced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.
Theprophets.Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing onecourse of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibilityof an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or ifa prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, thenGod may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move thatGod chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20;Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12;Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).
Inthe book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle ofseven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminatingin the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speechopens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, Iwill not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he hascommitted himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verbshub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question ofreprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation isirrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent”(nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shownAmos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment isnot the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and thesetemporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’sdetermination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, eventhough Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearersto repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—thatis, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’sfall (5:4–6, 14–15).
Salvationand judgment.This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OTaccounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcementof the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary,judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe thegood news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers toescape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus(Acts 2:40).
The Hebrew verb sharaq, sometimes translated as “tohiss,” can also be translated as “to whistle” andhas two distinct uses in Scripture. It can refer to summoning, as inwhen a shepherd summons sheep (Judg. 5:16), God summons his people(Isa. 5:26; Zech. 10:8), or God summons an enemy as a means ofjudgment against his people (Isa. 7:18). The word also and morecommonly refers to an expression of astonishment or derision, mostoften upon God’s judgment (Jer. 49:17; 50:13; Lam. 2:15; Ezek.27:36; Mic. 6:16; Zeph. 2:15). In 1Kings 9:8 God declares thatthe temple will be destroyed if his people disobey, and this word isused to anticipate the shock that people will feel. Jeremiahsimilarly predicted the shock of people who will witness thedestruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 19:8).
A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenlybeings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudesof heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but“host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrewphrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of theheavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and anarmy comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander ofthe Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There aretimes when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’smilitary retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heavenagainst Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battleagainst the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to standstill (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages,the phrase may have had some military background, but it is alsounderstood in other ways.
Perhapsone of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1Kings22:19 (cf. 2Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”),where it describes God’s council. There are other biblicalphrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly councilsurrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim”of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss.29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and thecelestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenlybodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifyingthis connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God”parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenlybeings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer liesin the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Anotherpossible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers orangels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut.3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worshipYahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels whoappear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the“heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).
Thelast and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven”is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likelythat from their association with God’s council, these celestialelements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart fromGod. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer tothe stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars inthe sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starryhosts” (2Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers tothe totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenlyarray”]; cf. 2Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distributionof the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narratingthe Assyrian period (2Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer.19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between theworship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalagein the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelitereligion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—thatis, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period dueto the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship ofthe astral powers.
In ancient Israel, as an agricultural community, the housewas the center of family life. Apart from daily family activities,the basic functions of an Israelite house were for storage andstabling.
Atypical house in Iron Age Palestine was basically rectangular inshape, constructed of sun-dried mud-bricks, and completely roofed. Itconsisted of either three or four rooms, although in some rareoccasions it was a two-room house. The size of the house varied,depending on the wealth of the owner. Structurally, the mostimportant and noticeable features were the pillars, generally made ofstone. These monolithic pillars separated the rooms from thecourtyard and supported the flat roof or ceiling. A three-room houseusually consisted of a row of pillars in the center of the structure,while a four-room house consisted of two rows, dividing the two siderooms, with the courtyard in the middle.
Wallsprovided enclosure for a family unit but could also serve aspartitions between adjacent houses. They were constructed ofmud-brick (cf. Exod. 5:7) and erected on a stone foundation. Theexterior of the walls needed regular whitewashing to prevent erosioncaused by winter rain (cf. Ezek. 13:10–18), and the interiorwalls were decorated with painted line ornaments (Jer. 22:14). Unlikemodern windows, Israelite windows were essentially slits in thewalls, without glass filling (Josh. 2:15; 2Cor. 11:33). Forsecurity and climate control, they were small, but they were goodenough for natural lighting and ventilation (cf. Hos. 13:3). Oillamps were placed in the wall niches (2Kings 4:10; Matt. 5:15).
Theentrance to the house usually was in the center of the front wall.The door, which opened inward, was mounted with three woodendoorframes on two sides and on top of the wooden door (cf. Exod.12:7, 22–23). The door was locked from the inside with atumbler lock and a wooden bolt (Judg. 3:25; Neh. 3:3). From outside,it was accessed through a fist-sized keyhole (Song 5:4) with a largekey (Isa. 22:22). A stone threshold (1Kings 14:17; cf. 1Sam.5:4–5) was laid at the base of the door.
Theceiling of the ground floor was less than six feet high. The centralroom was used for work such as food processing, although cooking wasalso done outdoors. A hearth was a hole in the ground used to setfire for cooking or for warmth (Jer. 36:22). The side rooms were usedfor stables (1Sam. 28:24). At the rear of the house was a broadroom (cf. Ps. 128:3; Amos 6:10) used mainly for storage purposes. Thefloor of the courtyard was laid with beaten earth, while the roomshad dirt floors. The upper level, which served as a place forsleeping, dining, and leisure activities (1Kings 17:19; 2Kings4:10; Mark 14:15; Acts 9:37), was accessed through a wooden ladderfrom inside the house or through a stone staircase from the outside.
Aunique feature of Israelite houses was the roof. The flat, plasteredroof served as the place for domestic activities (e.g., Josh. 2:6–8;1Sam. 9:25–26; 2Sam. 11:2) and religious activities(Jer. 19:13; 32:29; Zeph. 1:5; Acts 10:9), especially during hotweather. It was not uncommon for grass to grow on it (Isa. 37:27).Since it was flat, waterproofing was a pressing problem. As such,constant compacting and resurfacing of the roof with a limestoneroller was needed (cf. Eccles. 10:18). For safety, parapets werebuilt around the roof (Deut. 22:8). Since the roof was elevated andpublic, activities there were noticeable by people outside; thuspublic announcement could be made from the roof (Matt. 10:27; Luke12:3). Absalom had sexual intercourse with David’s concubineson a rooftop, which might have been an act of public declaration ofhis kingship (2Sam. 16:22).
Potteryin the Bible
TheBible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, andpotters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cookfood and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots usedfor very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) weremade out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod.38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freelyobtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make.The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendereduseless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery isseen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery ratherthan wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purposefor pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications,including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and formingidols.
Potteryand the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolicconnotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken potterysymbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps.31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying thenations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery(2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trustsmore than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14).Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punishedand will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer.25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related topottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads onclay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25).Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of brokenpottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).
BothIsaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiahsays, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the workof your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the samething, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees thehuman molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that canresult in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10).Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the PotsherdGate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), andsmashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah(Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also partof the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery inJerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paulcreates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to takethe same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of whichhave special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God hasthe right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humansbecause he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul alsorefers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2Cor.4:7).
Inanother example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people incaptivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God(Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishmentthat God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God hasmolded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).
Manufactureof Pottery
Preparingthe clay.Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered andprepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areaswill have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials.Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of thesmoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine wasnot of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed inthe pots as they were being made. We also know that during the timeof the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay withdifferent kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’sadvanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where theclay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generallyimpractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort ofanalysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot.Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it wasoften necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. Thisprocess was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well asmaking it malleable.
Shaping.Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried inthe sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters andwhether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believethat early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practicalpurposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy todetermine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand andfinger marks left in the clay and comparing their size inrelationship to the average size of both men’s and women’shands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils ofclay one upon another.
Althoughit is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did notdevelop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’swheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery andalso gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Severalexamples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating toaround 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheelsduring biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavierwheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center ofthis wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supportedby a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel,which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that anapprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed,sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one largerwheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.
Anothermethod for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press moldswere used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and thenallowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away fromthe mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method wasused for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) andsmall oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fusedtogether.
Decoratingand firing.Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold,it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment madefrom earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’splace of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint thepot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done byusing a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay.Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stampedwith what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that thepots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the potteryfrom in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal thepot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of themonarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice ofmaterials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands,imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to thesmoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.
Oncethe decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order toreveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed duringdrying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the potwas then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and thetechnology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple asplacing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use ofsophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and evenheat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heatis kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which wasnot an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source.Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret,we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.
Typesof Pottery
Thereare several general categories of pottery, which are based on theircharacteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extantexamples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot bedetermined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. Theseitems tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much liketableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots.Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, openpans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in allsizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs(with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and othervaluable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes oflamps.
Importanceof Pottery for Archaeology
Potteryhas become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While writtentexts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religiousor cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is potterythat helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.
Historyof dating pottery. Whiledoing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that fordifferent time periods of Egyptian history there were different kindsof pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics.These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such asthe thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on thepot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements.These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sitesthat had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged eachpiece of pottery found at each site and over time developed anextensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating.Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticedthat each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had adifferent type of pottery, much like the different kinds of potteryhe had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking workin Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery inPalestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As aresult, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that couldbe used to date different archaeological digs and strata in theentire ancient Near East. Later, W.F. Albright expanded onPetrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refiningthe dating of each time period of pottery.
Tohelp explain this significant discovery, L.E. Stager uses theexample of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years.For example, he notes that when soda bottles were firstmass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass withraised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; differenttypes of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately thebottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In morerecent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolutionof the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery overtime. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog ofdocumented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter howinsignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can comparethe pottery finds from one place with those in other places.
Timeperiods.In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is dividedinto broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The MiddleBronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of theearliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of thepatriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots hadlittle or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vesselshad improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic(4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence ofmass production.
TheLate Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes thetime of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramaticdecrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no knownexplanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the sametime, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greeceand Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quitesophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during thistime there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Somehave suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts ofPalestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines ofbiblical history.
TheIron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time periodfrom the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy,demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in thisperiod. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locallyat Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highlydecorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. Thelater pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill andsophistication.
ThePersian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Romanperiods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of theseperiods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invadingcountries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were stronglyestablished, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the marketswith their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.
Geographyand economy.Biblical Lebanon is the region that consists of two parallel mountainranges north of Israel, whose boundaries are very similar tomodern-day Lebanon. The south-southwest range is called “Lebanon,”and the north-northeast range “Anti-Lebanon” (i.e., “allLebanon to the east” [cf. Josh. 13:5]). Between the two rangesis the Valley of Lebanon, where the city of Baal Gad was located(Josh. 11:17; 12:7). At the southern end is Mount Hermon, where thesnowcapped peaks probably gave rise to its name, which in Hebrewmeans “to be white” (Jer. 18:14). Biblical referencesprobably have in view Mount Lebanon (Judg. 3:3), with an elevation often thousand feet. Historically, the region was not as prosperous asthe coastal Phoenician cities, although it was well known for itslumber industry. The fruits (Ps. 72:16), wine (Hos. 14:7), flowingwaters (Song 4:15), and animals (Song 4:8) are described effusivelyin the OT. The region marks the northern boundary of the promisedland (Deut. 1:7; 3:25; 11:24; Josh. 1:4; 9:1), which Joshua neverconquered (Josh. 13:5; Judg. 3:1–3). Later, Solomon seems tohave built cities in it (1Kings 9:19; 2Chron. 8:6).
Archaeologicalevidence indicates that trees found in the region, such as pine,cypress, and cedar, were greatly sought after from the time of theMiddle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) to the Byzantine period (AD324–638) for use in the construction of buildings and boats(cf. Ezek. 27:5). Cedar wood from the forests of Lebanon was shippedto Solomon by the king of Tyre for building the temple in Jerusalem(1Kings 4:33; 5:6–10; 2Kings 14:9; 2Chron.2:8–16; Song 3:9). When the forest belonged to the king ofPersia, he authorized cedar wood to be sent for the building of thesecond temple (Ezra 3:7).
Metaphoricaluse of “Lebanon.”Important to the present discussion is the metaphorical use of theterm “Lebanon,” particularly in the OT, where the termoccurs over seventy times (the name does not appear in the NT).First, associated with the mountainous range in the region, Lebanonevokes images of glory, fertility, and abundance. For example, thehigh elevation gives Lebanon the sense of majesty and glory (Isa.35:2; 60:13; cf. 2Kings 19:23), which is further equated withthe glory of Jerusalem (Isa. 60:13; Ezek. 17:3, 22; cf. Isa. 10:34;Zech. 11:1) and the restored Israel (Zech. 10:10–11; cf. Jer.22:6). The melting snows, plus the annual rainfall, ensure abundanceand fertility (Ps. 104:16; Song 4:15; Jer. 18:14; cf. Ps. 72:16). Theglory of Lebanon is linked with Sharon, Bashan, and Carmel in theterritory of Israel (Isa. 2:13; 35:2; cf. Isa. 33:9; Nah. 1:4).
Second,of all the coniferous trees in the forest of Lebanon, cedars receivethe greatest attention and have been regularly used to indicatestature and beauty. For example, their sweet smell describes thedesirability of renewed Israel (Song 4:11; Hos. 14:7), and theirmagnificence reminds one of the beautiful trees in Eden (Ps. 104:16;Ezek. 31:9, 16). These towering evergreens are a fitting image ofhumankind. The righteous people are compared to a cedar of Lebanon(Ps. 92:12–15); the legs of the bridegroom are as noble as thecedars (Song 5:15); and even kings, both Davidic (Isa. 14:8; Ezek.17:3) and foreign (Isa. 10:34; Ezek. 31:3–18), as well as theirsubjects (Judg. 9:15), are likened to the cedars of Lebanon. Quiteoften, they are symbols of political entities (Isa. 2:13; 40:16),such as Judah (Ezek. 17:3), Assyria (Ezek. 31:3), and Tyre (Ezek.27:5).
Third,Lebanon, together with its forest, is used to depict negative images.For example, all its glories and riches combined are not enough for asacrificial offering to God (Isa. 40:16). The barrenness of Lebanonis the result of God’s judgment (Isa. 33:9). Prophetic oraclesare often associated with Lebanon. The cutting down or withering ofthe choicest trees is spoken of as judgment against the proud (Isa.2:13; 33:9; Ezek. 31:15; Nah. 1:4), against the wicked nation of Tyre(Ezek. 27:1–9) and Judah (Jer. 22:6–7).
Fourth,exegetical traditions resulting from the metaphorical richness ofLebanon are found in later Jewish literature. For example, based onthe root (lbn) of the term “Lebanon,” which means “tobe white,” the rabbis interpreted it to refer to the temple,for it whitens the sin of Israel (b.Yoma 39a). The sweetfragrance of the cedars in Lebanon (Hos. 14:6) causes interpreters toconnect it with the smell of the youth of Israel exhaled in the lastday (b.Ber. 43b).
Potteryin the Bible
TheBible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, andpotters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cookfood and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots usedfor very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) weremade out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod.38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freelyobtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make.The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendereduseless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery isseen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery ratherthan wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purposefor pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications,including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and formingidols.
Potteryand the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolicconnotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken potterysymbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps.31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying thenations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery(2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trustsmore than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14).Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punishedand will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer.25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related topottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads onclay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25).Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of brokenpottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).
BothIsaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiahsays, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the workof your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the samething, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees thehuman molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that canresult in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10).Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the PotsherdGate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), andsmashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah(Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also partof the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery inJerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paulcreates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to takethe same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of whichhave special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God hasthe right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humansbecause he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul alsorefers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2Cor.4:7).
Inanother example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people incaptivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God(Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishmentthat God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God hasmolded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).
Manufactureof Pottery
Preparingthe clay.Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered andprepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areaswill have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials.Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of thesmoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine wasnot of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed inthe pots as they were being made. We also know that during the timeof the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay withdifferent kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’sadvanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where theclay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generallyimpractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort ofanalysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot.Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it wasoften necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. Thisprocess was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well asmaking it malleable.
Shaping.Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried inthe sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters andwhether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believethat early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practicalpurposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy todetermine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand andfinger marks left in the clay and comparing their size inrelationship to the average size of both men’s and women’shands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils ofclay one upon another.
Althoughit is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did notdevelop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’swheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery andalso gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Severalexamples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating toaround 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheelsduring biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavierwheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center ofthis wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supportedby a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel,which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that anapprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed,sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one largerwheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.
Anothermethod for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press moldswere used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and thenallowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away fromthe mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method wasused for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) andsmall oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fusedtogether.
Decoratingand firing.Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold,it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment madefrom earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’splace of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint thepot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done byusing a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay.Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stampedwith what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that thepots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the potteryfrom in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal thepot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of themonarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice ofmaterials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands,imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to thesmoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.
Oncethe decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order toreveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed duringdrying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the potwas then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and thetechnology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple asplacing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use ofsophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and evenheat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heatis kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which wasnot an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source.Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret,we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.
Typesof Pottery
Thereare several general categories of pottery, which are based on theircharacteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extantexamples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot bedetermined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. Theseitems tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much liketableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots.Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, openpans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in allsizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs(with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and othervaluable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes oflamps.
Importanceof Pottery for Archaeology
Potteryhas become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While writtentexts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religiousor cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is potterythat helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.
Historyof dating pottery. Whiledoing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that fordifferent time periods of Egyptian history there were different kindsof pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics.These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such asthe thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on thepot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements.These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sitesthat had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged eachpiece of pottery found at each site and over time developed anextensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating.Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticedthat each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had adifferent type of pottery, much like the different kinds of potteryhe had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking workin Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery inPalestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As aresult, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that couldbe used to date different archaeological digs and strata in theentire ancient Near East. Later, W.F. Albright expanded onPetrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refiningthe dating of each time period of pottery.
Tohelp explain this significant discovery, L.E. Stager uses theexample of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years.For example, he notes that when soda bottles were firstmass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass withraised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; differenttypes of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately thebottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In morerecent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolutionof the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery overtime. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog ofdocumented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter howinsignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can comparethe pottery finds from one place with those in other places.
Timeperiods.In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is dividedinto broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The MiddleBronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of theearliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of thepatriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots hadlittle or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vesselshad improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic(4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence ofmass production.
TheLate Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes thetime of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramaticdecrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no knownexplanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the sametime, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greeceand Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quitesophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during thistime there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Somehave suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts ofPalestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines ofbiblical history.
TheIron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time periodfrom the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy,demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in thisperiod. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locallyat Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highlydecorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. Thelater pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill andsophistication.
ThePersian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Romanperiods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of theseperiods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invadingcountries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were stronglyestablished, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the marketswith their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.
A broken piece of pottery that is essentially useless.Because of the easy availability and cheap cost of pottery in theancient Near East and pottery’s relative fragility, brokenpottery was common. Potsherds are mentioned a few times in the Bible.Job used a potsherd to scrape his skin when he was infected with skinsores (Job 2:8). The gate near the Valley of Ben Hinnom was calledthe “Potsherd Gate” (Jer. 19:2). It is at this place thatJeremiah smashed a clay pot into potsherds to warn the people ofGod’s wrath.
Althoughpotsherds were rubbish in the ancient Near East, today theirarchaeological significance is immense. Because of the profusion ofpottery in the ancient Near East, potsherds are extant at every levelof an archaeological dig. Pottery now provides the best and easiestway to date a particular level of an archaeological site, and becauseit is rare to find intact vessels, most dating in archaeology isbased on potsherds. With today’s sophisticated system of datingpottery, potsherds can help date any ancient Near Eastern siteusually to within fifty to a hundred years.
Potsherdsalso often functioned as an easy surface on which to write. Thiswriting was accomplished by scratching the surface of the brokenpottery. This practice contributes to the wealth of archaeologicalinformation gained from potsherds. Potsherds that have writing onthem are called “ostraca,” and these are the most commonform of writing found at archaeological digs. Because they often onlycontain a couple of words or at most a couple of sentences, theyoften are difficult to translate due to the lack of context. Some ofthe most interesting and famous ostraca are the “Lachishletters,” written by a military officer named Hoshaiah to hissuperior, Joash, who was stationed at Lachish shortly before itsconquest by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. See also Pottery.
Potteryin the Bible
TheBible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, andpotters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cookfood and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots usedfor very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) weremade out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod.38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freelyobtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make.The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendereduseless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery isseen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery ratherthan wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purposefor pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications,including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and formingidols.
Potteryand the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolicconnotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken potterysymbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps.31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying thenations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery(2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trustsmore than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14).Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punishedand will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer.25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related topottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads onclay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25).Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of brokenpottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).
BothIsaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiahsays, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the workof your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the samething, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees thehuman molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that canresult in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10).Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the PotsherdGate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), andsmashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah(Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also partof the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery inJerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paulcreates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to takethe same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of whichhave special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God hasthe right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humansbecause he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul alsorefers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2Cor.4:7).
Inanother example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people incaptivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God(Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishmentthat God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God hasmolded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).
Manufactureof Pottery
Preparingthe clay.Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered andprepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areaswill have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials.Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of thesmoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine wasnot of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed inthe pots as they were being made. We also know that during the timeof the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay withdifferent kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’sadvanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where theclay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generallyimpractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort ofanalysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot.Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it wasoften necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. Thisprocess was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well asmaking it malleable.
Shaping.Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried inthe sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters andwhether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believethat early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practicalpurposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy todetermine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand andfinger marks left in the clay and comparing their size inrelationship to the average size of both men’s and women’shands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils ofclay one upon another.
Althoughit is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did notdevelop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’swheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery andalso gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Severalexamples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating toaround 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheelsduring biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavierwheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center ofthis wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supportedby a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel,which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that anapprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed,sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one largerwheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.
Anothermethod for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press moldswere used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and thenallowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away fromthe mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method wasused for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) andsmall oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fusedtogether.
Decoratingand firing.Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold,it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment madefrom earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’splace of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint thepot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done byusing a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay.Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stampedwith what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that thepots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the potteryfrom in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal thepot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of themonarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice ofmaterials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands,imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to thesmoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.
Oncethe decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order toreveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed duringdrying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the potwas then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and thetechnology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple asplacing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use ofsophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and evenheat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heatis kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which wasnot an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source.Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret,we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.
Typesof Pottery
Thereare several general categories of pottery, which are based on theircharacteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extantexamples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot bedetermined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. Theseitems tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much liketableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots.Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, openpans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in allsizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs(with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and othervaluable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes oflamps.
Importanceof Pottery for Archaeology
Potteryhas become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While writtentexts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religiousor cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is potterythat helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.
Historyof dating pottery. Whiledoing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that fordifferent time periods of Egyptian history there were different kindsof pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics.These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such asthe thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on thepot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements.These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sitesthat had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged eachpiece of pottery found at each site and over time developed anextensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating.Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticedthat each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had adifferent type of pottery, much like the different kinds of potteryhe had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking workin Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery inPalestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As aresult, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that couldbe used to date different archaeological digs and strata in theentire ancient Near East. Later, W.F. Albright expanded onPetrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refiningthe dating of each time period of pottery.
Tohelp explain this significant discovery, L.E. Stager uses theexample of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years.For example, he notes that when soda bottles were firstmass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass withraised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; differenttypes of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately thebottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In morerecent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolutionof the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery overtime. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog ofdocumented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter howinsignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can comparethe pottery finds from one place with those in other places.
Timeperiods.In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is dividedinto broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The MiddleBronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of theearliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of thepatriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots hadlittle or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vesselshad improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic(4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence ofmass production.
TheLate Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes thetime of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramaticdecrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no knownexplanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the sametime, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greeceand Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quitesophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during thistime there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Somehave suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts ofPalestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines ofbiblical history.
TheIron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time periodfrom the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy,demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in thisperiod. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locallyat Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highlydecorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. Thelater pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill andsophistication.
ThePersian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Romanperiods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of theseperiods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invadingcountries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were stronglyestablished, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the marketswith their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.
God’s “repenting” (KJV) or “relenting”(NIV) may seem to be in tension with his sovereignty, but it makessense on several assumptions. God wills to accomplish certain overallends, but he retains freedom to modify the path that he takes toachieve them, as needed. This in turn assumes that God’sinteraction with humanity involves genuine give-and-take. Therefore,God’s way in history may be recounted as a story with surprisetwists and turns that are integral to the plot. We may affirm allthis and also uphold divine sovereignty if we understand both humanprayer and God’s response as divinely ordained means for God toachieve his purposes.
Textsthat speak of God relenting indicate that God is adopting a newcourse of action, a change of mind. In a sense, divine judgmentit*elf represents a kind of “change of mind” from God’sbasic, original intent to bless. Whereas judgment is “hisstrange work ... his alien task” (Isa. 28:21),undertaken when necessary, God’s character is to be graciousand compassionate, to relent from sending calamity (Isa. 48:9; Joel2:13), and to bring restoration after judgment (Gen. 9:11; Isa.54:7–8; Hos.2).
Terminology.To portray God relenting, the OT often uses the Hebrew word nakham,which carries a strong emotional content and an element of regret. Oncertain occasions, it refers to profound grief that God feels inreaction to human sin and calamity (Gen. 6:6–7; Judg. 2:18;1Sam. 15:35; 2Sam. 24:16). This is not to suggest thatGod is making amends for wrongs or has the same kinds of regret formistakes that humans have. But we should recognize that when nakhamis used to speak of God “relenting,” it means somethingmore than a change in the direction of the wind: it involves theheart of God, engaged deeply with his people’s welfare (cf.Hos. 11:8–9). Conversely, the human cry for God to relent iswrung from experiences of deep crisis (Job 6:29; Pss. 90:13;106:44–45).
Exodusand Jonah.Two classic OT narratives about divine relenting may be contrasted.In Exod. 32 the Israelites’ idolatry with the golden calf isfollowed by God’s indictment and intention to destroy them. Adramatic turning point comes with Moses’ intercession, inresponse to which God relents. The book of Jonah turns this sequenceon its head. Here the prophet resists his mission of announcingNineveh’s doom because he fears that its people may repent,which they do (Jon. 3:5–9), and that God may then relent frombringing on them the judgment that he had sent Jonah to announce,which he does (4:2). The book of Jonah portrays the prophet as anantihero, out of step with the compassion and larger purposes of God,unhappy with the freedom of God. But it preserves the link betweenhuman repentance for sin and divine relenting from previouslyannounced judgment, as seen in Exod. 32.
Theprophets.Through the OT prophets, God wrestles with Israel, announcing onecourse of action, judgment, while often holding open the possibilityof an alternate ending: if Israel repents (Jer. 18:8; 26:3, 13) or ifa prophet (Amos 7:1–6) or a king (Jer. 26:19) intercedes, thenGod may relent. At the end of the day, relenting remains a move thatGod chooses to make or not to make (Isa. 57:6; Jer. 7:16–20;Ezek. 24:14), in faithfulness to his own purpose (Ps. 7:10–12;Jer. 23:20; 30:24; Zech. 8:14–15).
Inthe book of Amos, God does both. Amos 1–2 comprises a cycle ofseven judgment speeches against Israel’s neighbors, culminatingin the eighth, lengthiest judgment speech against Israel. Each speechopens with the formula “For three sins of X, and for four, Iwill not turn back [my wrath].” Here God declares that he hascommitted himself to carrying out judgment. With the use of the verbshub (“to turn, turn back”), any implied question ofreprieve is answered immediately: the nation’s condemnation isirrevocable. But in 7:1–6 God is twice said to “relent”(nakham) from sending the locusts and fire that he has just shownAmos in visions. Granting stays from specific forms of punishment isnot the same as forgiving Israel’s sin, however, and thesetemporary measures are followed by a reassertion of God’sdetermination to spare Israel no longer (7:7–9). Moreover, eventhough Israel’s doom is sealed, Amos can still urge his hearersto repent and turn to God, on the grounds that God may relent—thatis, freely respond with mercy and allow some to survive the nation’sfall (5:4–6, 14–15).
Salvationand judgment.This divine freedom, compassion, and judgment that dovetail in OTaccounts of God relenting are embodied in Jesus’ announcementof the kingdom, which signals both salvation and its corollary,judgment. Hence come his summons to “Repent and believe thegood news” (Mark 1:15) and the apostolic call for hearers toescape their generation’s doom by repentance and faith in Jesus(Acts 2:40).
To treat with contempt, ridicule, despise. The people of God,through their thoughtlessness and rebellion, scorn God and hisworship (1Sam. 2:29). More often the godly are scorned by thewicked (Ps. 69:7, 10, 20; Prov. 23:9). God will also subject hispeople to scorn when they reject and ignore him (Deut. 28:37; Jer.18:16; Ezek. 22:4).
A KJV phrase used to describe the heavenly bodies or heavenlybeings. The NIV prefers “starry host(s),” “multitudesof heaven,” or “stars in the heavens/sky,” but“host of the heavens” does occur in Dan. 8:10. The Hebrewphrase, tseba’ hashamayim, means literally “army of theheavens.” The connection between the celestial elements and anarmy comes in conjunction with God’s role as the commander ofthe Israelite forces (Josh. 5:13–15; Judg. 5:23). There aretimes when the Bible portrays the celestial elements as part of God’smilitary retinue, fighting on his behalf. The stars fight from heavenagainst Sisera (Judg. 5:20), and in the Israelites’ battleagainst the Amorites, the sun and the moon are commanded to standstill (Josh. 10:12–13; cf. Hab. 3:11). Based on these passages,the phrase may have had some military background, but it is alsounderstood in other ways.
Perhapsone of the more enigmatic uses of the phrase occurs in 1Kings22:19 (cf. 2Chron. 18:18; NIV: “multitudes of heaven”),where it describes God’s council. There are other biblicalphrases used with more frequency to describe the heavenly councilsurrounding God. Other names for these beings include the “seraphim”of Isa. 6:2 and the “sons of God” in Job 1:6; 2:1; Pss.29:1; 89:6. The connection between God’s council and thecelestial elements likely comes, as noted above, through the heavenlybodies’ association with God in battle. Further solidifyingthis connection is Job 38:7, where the “sons of God”parallel the “morning stars.” Exactly what these heavenlybeings are is debated, and many interpreters suggest the answer liesin the polytheistic context of Israel’s neighbors. Anotherpossible explanation is to view these beings as the messengers orangels of God. The Bible portrays them as inferior beings (Deut.3:24; 10:17; Jer. 10:6), and they function to serve and worshipYahweh (Pss. 29:1; 103:21; 148:2–3; Isa. 6:2). The angels whoappear to the shepherds at Jesus’ birth are described as the“heavenly host” (Luke 2:13).
Thelast and most frequent use of the phrase “host of heaven”is to describe a condemned object of Israelite worship. It is likelythat from their association with God’s council, these celestialelements gained an independent status and were worshiped apart fromGod. At times the “host of heaven” appears to refer tothe stars alone; the NIV therefore translates it as “stars inthe sky” (Deut. 17:3; Jer. 33:22; cf. Jer. 8:2) or “starryhosts” (2Kings 23:5). At other times the phrase refers tothe totality of the heavenly bodies (Deut. 4:19 [NIV: “heavenlyarray”]; cf. 2Kings 21:3, 5). Based on the distributionof the phrase, and its occurrence primarily in documents narratingthe Assyrian period (2Kings 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4–5; Jer.19:13; Zeph. 1:5), there is likely a direct correlation between theworship of the host of heaven and Israel’s Assyrian vassalagein the seventh century BC. The extent of Assyrian impact on Israelitereligion is debated, but it is likely that astral worship—thatis, worship of the starry hosts—flourished in this period dueto the influence of the Assyrians, a culture entrenched in worship ofthe astral powers.
Topheth, whose name is associated with the Hebrew word for“spit,” was located in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to theimmediate southwest of Jerusalem. At times, it served as the citydump, where trash was burned. In the NT period, the valley was knownas Gehenna, which was associated with hell. Josiah had destroyed thisplace because it was the location of the false worship of the foreigngod Molek (2Kings 23:10–11), but the idolatrous worshipsite must have been rebuilt. In the time of Jeremiah, some Israelitesperformed child sacrifice in this location, so the prophet announcedjudgment against them (Jer. 7:30–34; 19:6–15).
The Hinnom (or Ben Hinnom) Valley circles Jerusalem on thesouth and west, a natural defense for the city. It was a boundarybetween the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). Goddesignated it the “Valley of Slaughter” because the kingsof Judah and the people of Jerusalem built the high places of Tophethand burned their sons in the fire as sacrifices to Baal (Jer.7:31–32; 19:2–6; see also 2Chron. 28:3; 33:6).During his reformation, Josiah desecrated Topheth in the HinnomValley (2Kings 23:10). The “Valley of Hinnom” (Heb.ge-hinnom) became “Gehenna” (Gk. geenna, from Aramaic), aplace notorious for burning refuse, a vivid illustration for Jesus’references to everlasting torment (e.g., Matt. 10:28). See alsoGehenna; Hell.
There is no mention of wheels in the NT, while four differenttypes of wheels are described in the OT. They include a potter’swheel, a chariot wheel, a wheel used for processing grain, and thewheel referred to in Ezekiel’s theophany. The potter’swheel was a simple device for creating pottery that was symmetricaland strong. Jeremiah observed a potter working with a pottery wheel(Jer. 18:3). Chariot wheels may have been invented by the Sumeriansand were a common part of warfare during most of the OT. These wheelswere either a solid wheel made of two or three planks of wood heldtogether with wooden pegs or the more common wheel-and-spokeassembly. The spoke assembly was favored as iron and other metaltechnology was developed (Exod. 14:25). This sort of wheel alsofunctioned in the temple to hold the lavers (1Kings 7:30–33).Wheels also were used to crush grain in order to separate the huskfrom the harvested grain, to grind grain into flour, and to extractoil from olives (Isa. 28:28). There is much speculation about thespecifications of the phantasmagorical wheels in Ezekiel’svisions, which include the enigmatic description of a wheelintersecting a wheel (Ezek. 1:15–16). It is clear from thisdescription that the wheels are intended to guide a vehicle that cango in any direction instantly, but nothing else is known about them.
Scripture describes wind as a powerful force that is underGod’s command. The Hebrew word ruakhsometimes is translated as “wind” but other times canmean “breath,” as well as “spirit” (Gen.1:2). The Greek word for “spirit,” pneuma,hints of a similar range of meaning, although another word is mostoften used in the NT to denote wind.
OldTestament. Throughoutthe OT wind is used by God to fulfill his purposes. Psalm 148:8declares that winds do God’s bidding. Yahweh keeps the wind instorehouses until they are needed (Ps. 135:7; Jer. 10:13). God useswind to protect and provide for his people. For instance, God sends awind over the earth to cause the floodwaters surrounding the ark torecede (Gen. 8:1), a strong east wind to drive back the sea duringthe exodus from Egypt (Exod. 14:21), and a wind that drives quail infrom the sea to serve as food for the Israelites in the wilderness(Num. 11:31).
Windcan also be an agent of God’s destruction. God sends a plagueupon Egypt by making an east wind blow locusts all across the land;afterward, God uses a west wind to blow the locusts into the sea(Exod. 10:13–19). In the book of Job a mighty wind from thedesert causes the house of Job’s eldest son to collapse,killing Job’s seven sons and three daughters (Job 1:19). In thebook of Jonah a great wind sent by God threatens to destroy Jonah’sship, and a scorching east wind later causes Jonah to grow faint anddesire death (Jon. 1:4; 4:8). The prophetic books use the subject ofwind in communicating God’s judgment (e.g., Isa. 28:2; 64:6;Ezek. 5:2; 13:11).
Whilea single wind is able to blow in several directions (Eccles. 1:6),many passages specify four winds from the four quarters of theheavens. The north wind brings rain (Prov. 25:23), while the southwind brings heat (Job 37:17), both of which are useful for growing agarden (Song 4:16). Only one verse refers to the west windspecifically (Exod. 10:19), but numerous verses refer to the eastwind as an agent of destruction, often appearing along with militaryterms. When let loose by God (Ps. 78:26), the east wind may shatterships (Ps. 48:7), and those in its path will scatter (Jer. 18:17) orshrivel (Ezek. 19:12). In Hos. 12:1 God accuses Israel of pursuingthe east wind along with multiplying lies and violence. Together, thefour winds can be sent to bring destruction (Jer. 49:36) or to bringlife (Ezek. 37:9). They also appear in the visions of Daniel (Dan.7:2; 8:8; 11:4; cf. Rev. 7:1).
Godrides on the wings of the wind on cherubim (Ps. 18:10; 2Sam.22:11), with the clouds as his chariot (Ps. 104:3). In Ps. 104:4 thewinds are called God’s “messengers.” This imageryis strikingly similar to ancient descriptions of the Canaanite godBaal, although Scripture adds that it is Yahweh who created the wind(Job 28:25; Amos 4:13). Yahweh’s power is not contingent uponwind, as Elijah learns when he experiences the presence of Yahweh inthe whisper and not the wind (or the earthquake) after his successfulcontest against the prophets of Baal (1Kings 19:11–12).
Thewisdom literature focuses upon other characteristics of wind besidesits power. The transient nature of wind is significant, as wind isthe inheritance of those who bring trouble upon their family (Prov.11:29). Ecclesiastes continually refers to all things done under thesun as “a chasing after the wind” (e.g., 1:14, 17). Emptytalk is spoken of as wind (Job 8:2). The function of wind to blowaway chaff is also used to declare the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps.1:4; cf. Job 21:18). The unpredictability of wind serves as ametaphor for the mystery of God’s actions (Eccles. 11:5).
NewTestament.In the NT, the Gospels reveal the divine nature of Jesus byemphasizing his ability to command the wind (Matt. 8:26–27).Jesus declares that the Son of Man will gather his elect from thefour winds (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27). Wind is a metaphor in John 3:8for the mystery and unpredictability of those born of the Spirit.Jesus uses the image of empty talk as wind when he refers to John theBaptist as a prophet rather than a reed swayed by the wind (Matt.11:7; Luke 7:24). In Eph. 4:14 false teaching is referred to as wind.It is wind that easily sways the one who doubts (James 1:6). Finally,a correlation between wind and the Holy Spirit occurs when a soundlike a violent wind occurs at the time when the Holy Spirit fills allthose in the house at Pentecost (Acts 2:2).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Jeremiah 18:1--19:15
is mentioned in the definition.
Traditionally, twin rocks upon which midwives would seatwomen for childbirth. The term appears once in the NRSV (NIV:“delivery stool”), translating a Hebrew word (’abenayim)that literally means “two stones” (Exod. 1:16). However,the same Hebrew word means “potter’s wheel” in Jer.18:3, suggesting that the obstetric understanding could bemetaphoric.
The guilt that results from the shedding of innocent blood,the taking of an innocent life. The person who incurred bloodguiltwas considered not only morally but also ritually impure; thisimpurity attached not just to the person, for the land was maderitually impure as well. The only way this impurity could be removedwas by the execution of the guilty individual (Num. 35:29–34).The person responsible for carrying out the sentence was referred toas the “avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19–27; Deut.19:6–13 [see also Avenger]). This responsibility fell to theslain person’s nearest kin. For those whose taking of innocentlife was accidental (manslaughter), there were cities of refugeestablished to which the accused could flee from the avenger, and ajudicial process was set up to determine innocence or guilt (see alsoCities of Refuge).
Inaddition to the legal sections of the OT, bloodguilt comes underrepeated condemnation in narrative, poetry, and prophecy. Already inGen. 4 the murder of Abel is narrated, with God declaring that Abel’sblood “cries out to me from the ground” (4:10). Numerousaccounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles narrate both the sheddingof innocent blood and the ensuing vengeance that was carried out(e.g., 2 Sam. 16:8).
Proverbswarns the young not to join with those who lie in wait to shedinnocent blood (1:11–18). The psalms, as well as condemningthose who shed innocent blood, also pay special attention to the factthat God himself plays the role of the avenger of blood (Pss. 5:6;9:12; 79:10). Lamentations attributes the exile directly to theincurrence of bloodguilt (Lam. 4:13–14).
Theprophets were especially concerned with bloodguilt. God would notaccept sacrifices from those whose hands were “full of blood”(Isa. 1:15; cf. 59:1–7). Their sacrifices were unacceptable fortwo reasons: (1) since they had incurred bloodguilt, they wereritually impure and therefore not in a position to be able to offersacrifices; (2) the sacrifices that they were offering had comeinto their possession as a result of their oppression and murder ofthe poor; that is, they were not the legitimate owners of that whichthey were sacrificing (see also Jer. 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; 26:15;Ezek. 22–24).
Inthe Gospels, the chilling words “His blood is on us and on ourchildren” (Matt. 27:25) are pronounced with regard to perhapsthe most heinous instance of bloodguilt in the Bible (see also Matt.23:30, 35; 27:4–8; Luke 11:50–51; Acts 5:28).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
A gate of Jerusalem located in the southwest corner, leadinginto the Hinnom Valley. The gate was restored by Nehemiah (Neh.3:13). In NT times it was known as the Gate of the Essenes (Josephus,J.W. 5.145). The gate was called “Dung Gate” probablybecause it led to the city dump. God instructed Jeremiah to prophesythe destruction of Jerusalem from the Potsherd Gate (Jer. 19:2),possibly the same gate as the Dung Gate.
This name is a Latin and Greek derivation of the Hebrew placename “Valley of Hinnom” (Neh. 11:30), the deep ravine onthe southern end of the ancient city of Jerusalem. It was also calledthe “Valley of Ben Hinnom” (Jer. 19:2) and was thenorthern boundary of Judah from the time of the conquest (Josh. 15:8;18:16). It marked the northern boundary of Judahite settlement in thetime of Ezra and Nehemiah. This placed the city of Jerusalem justinside Benjamite territory. It became a name of infamy because pagancultic places were located there during the time of the latermonarchy (2Kings 23:10; 2Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31;32:35), cults that involved the sacrifice of children to Molek andBaal. Jeremiah renamed it the “Valley of Slaughter” (Jer.7:32; 19:5–6).
Itis easy to see, therefore, how in later Jewish writings Gehenna couldbecome a metaphor for the fiery punishment that was the lot of thewicked on the day of judgment. This is reflected in NT usage. Jesusspoke about those who cursed others as being “in danger of thefire of Gehenna [NIV: ‘hell’]” (Matt. 5:22). Hesaid that the fate of the wicked was to have their bodies “throwninto Gehenna [NIV: ‘hell’]” (5:29–30). It isa place of destruction (10:28), and fire is its tormenting anddestructive element (18:9). Jesus described every hypocriticalPharisee as “a son of Gehenna [NIV: ‘hell’]”(23:15), for such hypocrisy would lead to their being sent there forpunishment (23:33). The fact that this word is repeatedly found onthe lips of Jesus (cf. Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5) means that thisteaching cannot be dismissed as exaggeration or condemned asinconsistent with loving concern for the sinner facing punishment.Outside the Synoptic Gospels, “Gehenna” appears in the NTonly in James 3:6 as part of his teaching on controlling the tongue.See also Hell; Hinnom, Valleyof.
The act of killing a human being as an offering to a deity ina religious ritual.
Inthe OT, human sacrifice is most closely associated with the worshipof Molek, a Canaanite deity of Phoenician origin. Molek’s namein Scripture is derived from the Hebrew word for “king,”melek, but using the vowel pattern of bosheth, which means “shame.”Human sacrifice was not limited to Molek; it was also part of Chemosh(Moabite) and Baal (Canaanite) worship (2Kings 3:27; Jer.19:5), as well as rituals practiced before other regional gods. Thereis enough fluidity in names and details to suggest that thesetraditions were somewhat intertwined.
Thepractice of sacrifice to Molek is literally described as causingone’s son or daughter “to pass through the fire.”Such a thing was forbidden to Israel (Lev. 18:21; 20:2–5) andwas called both a “detestable practice” and “detestableto the Lord” (Deut. 18:9–12). The shedding of innocentblood, a broader category of sin, was also prohibited (Deut. 19:10).Despite its gross offense, human sacrifice became a snare for Israelbecause it was so routine in Canaan, even though it was among thereasons given to them for driving the Canaanites out of the land (Ps.106:34–39).
Indeed,like the Canaanites, the Israelites did sacrifice their children toidols. Solomon built high places for Chemosh and Molek (1Kings11:7). Ahaz sacrificed his son to Molek in Judah (2Kings 16:3;2Chron. 28:1–4) according to the practices of the kingsof Israel (2Kings 17:17–18). So too did Manasseh (2Kings21:6; 2Chron. 33:6), whose sins also more broadly includedshedding innocent blood (2Kings 21:6, 16; 24:4; 2Chron.33:6).
TheValley of Ben Hinnom in Jerusalem, located below the south wall ofthe city, extending from the base of Mount Zion eastward to theKidron Valley, was a site for human sacrifices (Isa. 57:5). Thespecific place was called “Topheth,” either from a Hebrewword meaning “drum,” a reference to the priests of Molekbanging instruments to drown out the screams of the child victims, orfrom an Aramaic loanword for “hearth,” communicatingburning. In NT times, the same valley was known in Greek as Gehenna(geenna) and was used as a dump for burning refuse and a metaphor forhell.
Afterthe fall of the northern kingdom, Josiah’s reforms includeddesecrating Topheth to stop the heinous idolatry (2Kings23:10). It did not last, however, as Jeremiah later prophesied onlocation that the Valley of Ben Hinnom would be renamed the “Valleyof Slaughter” as a result of the despicable burning ofchildren, and that the nation would be smashed for its great sins(Jer. 7:31–32; 19:1–14; 32:35). His prophecies wereechoed by Ezekiel, whose passionate anger at Judah spilled over intoshocking, attention-grabbing rhetoric as Jerusalem fell to theBabylonians (Ezek. 16:20–21; 20:26, 31; 23:37–39).
Elsewhere,the Bible alludes to human sacrifice before God. God commanded theoffering of Isaac by Abraham as a test of Abraham’s devotionand obedience; and once Abraham passed the test, God stopped thesacrifice. A ram served as the substitute (Gen. 22:1–18). Onepossible reason for the matter-of-fact tone of the story is thatAbraham lived in a context where such demands were not unexpected.What made Abraham’s God different was that he stopped thesacrifice.
Amore difficult event is Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter inkeeping with a rash vow that he made to God before battling theAmmonites (Judg. 11:30–40). There is no easy explanation forhis gruesome vow fulfillment, which, this time, God did notmiraculously stop. However, Jephthah’s actions are consistentwith the book of Judges’ presentation of the Israelites asprogressively descending into Canaan-like depravity because they hadforgotten both God and his covenant.
Otherinstances that have been cited as examples of human sacrifice aremore consistent with divine justice and retribution than withexpiation (1Sam. 15:17–21, 32–33; 2Sam.21:1–14).
The biblical writers assure us that God does not change. Thepsalmist contrasts the perishable cosmos with the Creator himself:“But you remain the same, and your years will never end”(Ps. 102:27). In Mal. 3:6, God says that Jacob’s sons will notbe consumed, because “I the Lord do not change.” Jameshas the same objective: to reassure his people that God will remainthe source of good things, since God “does not change likeshifting shadows” (James 1:17). This doctrine of God’sunchangeableness, or immutability, should comfort his people becauseit implies that he is ever willing and able to keep his promises. Achangeable God might decide not to honor his commitments or becomepowerless to do so. In the first case, he loses his moral perfection;in the second, he ceases to be omnipotent.
God’sstatus as a perfect being makes this doctrine difficult to formulate,based on the worry that perfect things cannot change without becomingimperfect. Thus, Aristotle’s God, the “Unmoved Mover,”could do nothing but contemplate his own excellence, since all othertopics would be lesser. Similarly, such a “god” could noteven monitor the goings-on of human existence, since this activitywould change the content of his own mind. Aristotle’s God is“self-actualized” in every imaginable sense. But whilethe Bible says that God does not change, it also tells us that herelates to human beings and their lives in all sorts of ways. Heenjoys fellowship with Adam before the fall and gets angry when hispeople sin. God loves us, and he has worked in history to show us whohe is and to redeem us. The incarnation of Christ, the Son, is theprime example of God’s apparent mutability or changeableness onsome level, however one describes it. At the very least, he changeswith respect to his temporal relationships every time a sinnerrepents: the latter was lost, and now is found.
Thedoctrine of the immutability of God must come to grips with passageslike Gen. 6:5–7; Exod. 32:14; Jer. 18:7–10; 26:19; Amos7:3; and Jon. 3:10, which suggest that God sometimes regrets pastdecisions, changes his mind, and reverses himself in response tohuman actions, whether positive or negative. Some Christians respondto these passages by asserting that God is semidependent on creation(“process theology”) or mutable in his knowledge andpurposes (“open theism”). A better solution is todistinguish between (1)God’s essential nature and eternalpurposes, which cannot change, and (2)his contingentrelationships. God never retreats and never improvises, nor can hebecome “ungodlike.” Nevertheless, he is a real person,fully able to experience anger, joy, love, and longing—not lessbecause he is God, but rather far moreso.
An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.
Theologyof Marriage
Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.
First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.
Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.
Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.
Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.
Marriagein the Old Testament
TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.
Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.
TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).
Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).
Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.
Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).
Marriagein the New Testament
Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.
Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).
TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).
SymbolicUse of Marriage
Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.
TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).
There are considerable questions about the identification ofMolek. Generally, it has been believed that Molek was a god of theAmmonites (1Kings 11:5). Molek has long been associated withthe practice of child sacrifice, based on several references to thegod within the Bible. For example, Leviticus associates childsacrifice with the worship of Molek and prescribes capital punishmentfor any practitioner of such (18:21; 20:2–5). Josiah iscredited with destroying the altar (Topheth) to Molek in the Valleyof Ben Hinnom, so that no one could sacrifice a child to Molek there(2Kings 23:10–13).
Thebiblical text makes reference to the desecration of Topheth. It isnot known exactly what Topheth was, but the Hebrew word likely means“to burn,” which suggests that it was an incinerator orspecially formed altar. Whether this incinerator was for religiouspurposes only or had other uses, such as a kiln for firing pottery,is unknown. Jeremiah 19 records that Jeremiah pronounced an oracle atthe Potsherd Gate against Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom. Inthis oracle the god being worshiped is Baal rather than Molek;however, the location is still associated with child sacrifice. Thefact that the gate at which Jeremiah offers the oracle is called the“Potsherd Gate” suggests that this may have been theplace where potters worked, in which case there would have been aneed for a kiln close by to fire the pottery. Could this be Topheth?Jeremiah 7:31 offers more evidence that Topheth and the Valley of BenHinnom were used for child sacrifice.
Thereis some debate about the terminology of “pass through the fire”(KJV, NRSV, NET), which is a more literal translation of the Hebrewtext than the NIV’s “sacrifice” (see 2Kings16:3; 23:10). Some scholars attribute this phrase to Canaanitesources and question whether it refers to actually killing thesacrifice with fire or having the sacrifice symbolically burned bypassing the child through the fire. It should be noted, however, thatthe terminology “pass through the fire” is not usedexclusively in the Bible to refer to child sacrifice (see 2Chron.28:3).
Archaeologyhas proved that the Canaanites often performed child sacrifices,evidenced by large burial plots with many children near religiouscenters. Within the Canaanite pantheon the god Malik is fairly wellattested. Malik was the god of fire and one that demanded humansacrifice. The names “Malik” and “Molek” havethe same Semitic root, and it is possible that the OT has changed“Malik” to “Molek” to reflect its disgust bymixing the correct name with the Hebrew vocalization for “shame.”
Severalkings of Israel are accused not only of worshiping Molek, but also ofparticipating in child sacrifice and being a patron of the god.Solomon is accused of worshiping Molek and building a high place forMolek (1Kings 11:5–7, 33). This high place is perhaps theTopheth that Josiah desecrates (2Kings 23:10). Ahaz is recordedas sacrificing one of his sons in the fire (2Kings 16:3), asdid Manasseh (2Kings 21:6).
There are considerable questions about the identification ofMolek. Generally, it has been believed that Molek was a god of theAmmonites (1Kings 11:5). Molek has long been associated withthe practice of child sacrifice, based on several references to thegod within the Bible. For example, Leviticus associates childsacrifice with the worship of Molek and prescribes capital punishmentfor any practitioner of such (18:21; 20:2–5). Josiah iscredited with destroying the altar (Topheth) to Molek in the Valleyof Ben Hinnom, so that no one could sacrifice a child to Molek there(2Kings 23:10–13).
Thebiblical text makes reference to the desecration of Topheth. It isnot known exactly what Topheth was, but the Hebrew word likely means“to burn,” which suggests that it was an incinerator orspecially formed altar. Whether this incinerator was for religiouspurposes only or had other uses, such as a kiln for firing pottery,is unknown. Jeremiah 19 records that Jeremiah pronounced an oracle atthe Potsherd Gate against Topheth and the Valley of Ben Hinnom. Inthis oracle the god being worshiped is Baal rather than Molek;however, the location is still associated with child sacrifice. Thefact that the gate at which Jeremiah offers the oracle is called the“Potsherd Gate” suggests that this may have been theplace where potters worked, in which case there would have been aneed for a kiln close by to fire the pottery. Could this be Topheth?Jeremiah 7:31 offers more evidence that Topheth and the Valley of BenHinnom were used for child sacrifice.
Thereis some debate about the terminology of “pass through the fire”(KJV, NRSV, NET), which is a more literal translation of the Hebrewtext than the NIV’s “sacrifice” (see 2Kings16:3; 23:10). Some scholars attribute this phrase to Canaanitesources and question whether it refers to actually killing thesacrifice with fire or having the sacrifice symbolically burned bypassing the child through the fire. It should be noted, however, thatthe terminology “pass through the fire” is not usedexclusively in the Bible to refer to child sacrifice (see 2Chron.28:3).
Archaeologyhas proved that the Canaanites often performed child sacrifices,evidenced by large burial plots with many children near religiouscenters. Within the Canaanite pantheon the god Malik is fairly wellattested. Malik was the god of fire and one that demanded humansacrifice. The names “Malik” and “Molek” havethe same Semitic root, and it is possible that the OT has changed“Malik” to “Molek” to reflect its disgust bymixing the correct name with the Hebrew vocalization for “shame.”
Severalkings of Israel are accused not only of worshiping Molek, but also ofparticipating in child sacrifice and being a patron of the god.Solomon is accused of worshiping Molek and building a high place forMolek (1Kings 11:5–7, 33). This high place is perhaps theTopheth that Josiah desecrates (2Kings 23:10). Ahaz is recordedas sacrificing one of his sons in the fire (2Kings 16:3), asdid Manasseh (2Kings 21:6).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycirc*mstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcirc*mstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
The appropriation and adaptation of an OT text in the NT,often labeled “biblical intertextuality,” “innerbiblicalexegesis,” or “biblical allusion,” reflects theexegetical process whereby biblical writers deliberately appeal tothe OT in order to elucidate, expand, or lend authority to NTrevelation. This hermeneutical process finds its origins in the reuseof earlier OT texts by later OT writers. Later, the process wasrefined by the practices of scribal exegetes and rabbinical writersfrom the postexilic period well into the first century AD. Thisapproach to interpretation recognized the dynamic character ofScripture and sought to contemporize its messages to address theissues facing changing audiences.
Thebiblical reader should keep in mind that as far as the NT writerswere concerned, the OT texts comprised the authoritative corpus ofmaterial identified as the “Scriptures.” Consequently,the NT authors appeal to the authority of these accepted texts as thebasis upon which to build or expand their theological argument, toreinforce their credentials as God’s spokesmen, and toappropriate and adapt OT revelation to address contemporarycirc*mstances. The NT citation of an OT text assumes the familiarityof the audience with that earlier text, since the recollection of aspecific Scripture by the NT writer in the formulation of his latermessage necessarily evokes in the minds of the audience a literaryand logical connection. By drawing on the OT corpus, the NT authorreinforces the continuity of God’s message and forges theidentification of the NT audience with the experiences and promisesmade to their Israelite ancestors.
Themost frequently cited OT books in the NT are Deuteronomy, Psalms, andIsaiah, underscoring the significance and importance of these earlyIsraelite texts to the reformulation, expansion, and elucidation ofNT revelation. In addition, the numerous NT references to these booksindicate that they must have played a key role in the memories of theNT audience, forming the foundation for developing faith anddoctrine.
IdentifyingQuotations and Allusions
Onecritical and often difficult task facing the reader centers onlocating potential intertextual references in the NT, since not allscriptural citations and allusions are obvious, and the practice doesnot conform easily to an exacting scientific process. Familiaritywith the OT increases the ability to recognize the borrowing of OTthemes and passages by the NT. In addition, many NT writersunderstandably quoted from the LXX, the Greek translation of the OT,rather than from a Hebrew text tradition, since they themselves werewriting in Greek. Consequently, some variations in wording based onthe type of text tradition employed by the NT writer add complexityto the enterprise. In addition, NT writers often modeled theexegetical methods of their Jewish counterparts, which, thoughtypical of their culture and environment, seem unorthodox to somescholars.
RichardHays, in his 1989 book Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul,presents seven criteria against which to evaluate the presence ofbiblical allusions: (1)availability (did the original authorand readers have access to the source?); (2)volume (howextensive is the repetition of words from a previous text?);(3)recurrence (how often does the writer explicitly refer tothe same passage?); (4)thematic coherence (does the quotationsupport the surrounding context?); (5)historical plausibility(could the writer have intended the alleged meaning?); (6)historyof interpretation; and (7)satisfaction (does the citationilluminate the meaning of the surrounding text?). These principlesprovide a sufficient, if minimalistic, methodology for determiningauthentic instances of biblical intertextuality.
Quotations,Allusions, and Typology
TheNT use of the OT generally falls into three broad categories: directquotations (or citations), allusions, and typology.
Directquotations.Quotations normally are identified by an introductory formula, suchas “it is written” or “you have heard it said,”which serves to mark the upcoming quotation. In many instances the NTwriter identifies the OT source, either by genre (e.g., “as itwas spoken by the prophets”) or by the name of the author(“this was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah”).Occasionally, the NT writer relates his scriptural quotation orteaching to an individual, as in the case of the treatise on divorcein Matt. 19, where the Gospel writer repeatedly mentions Moses. Insome instances the NT author combines parts of two differentcitations derived from two separate sources, attributing the entirequotation to one author, sometimes the more obscure of the two. Forexample, in Matt. 27:9, a discussion of the betrayal of Judas and thethirty pieces of silver, Matthew conflates Zech. 11:12–13 andJer. 19:1–13 or (18:2–12 or 32:6–9) but assigns theentire citation to Jeremiah. The absence of a formal marker does notnegate the possibility of textual borrowing; however, the literaryconnection between a NT passage and an OT predecessor would have tobe established on the basis of literary affinities, rare terminologyor expressions, thematic similarities, and associative conceptsconnecting the OT and the NT contexts.
Allusionsand echoes.In contrast, biblical allusion employs no introductory or formulaicintroduction identifying or marking the OT reference. While alldirect quotations may be classified as biblical allusions, not allbiblical allusions include direct citation formulas. Both directcitation and biblical allusion denote the deliberate borrowing andrecontextualizing, transformation, or reinterpretation of a specifictext, which has been incorporated into the later text in order toaccommodate the writer’s message to a contemporary audience.The contextual environment of the antecedent, or OT text, influencesand informs the interpretation of the NT text. The NT authorintentionally evokes in the minds of his knowledgeable audience aspecific textual referent along with its contextual associations,reformulating them in an innovative manner.
Ina biblical echo, words or images are employed by a biblical writer inorder to evoke conscious memories associated with multiple texts orwith general themes. For example, the formulaic expression “theliving God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea andeverything in them” (Acts 14:15) recalls multiple OT texts(e.g., Ps. 96:5; Isa. 42:5; Jon. 1:9) connected to incomparabilitystatements reinforcing the sovereignty of God. The echo in Acts 17:26generally recalls the creation account in Genesis, without invoking aspecific verse or phrase. Although a NT writer may draw on biblicalechoes without necessarily invoking a specific context of anindividual passage, echoes may consist of interconnected layers ofmeaning that arise from differing historical settings andcirc*mstances, each of which contributes additional meaning to theecho.
Typologyand analogy.The NT writers often sought to employ OT texts by means of typology,reinforcing links between an OT event or concept and the subsequentdevelopment and transformation of that “type” in the NT.A “type” is a divinely appointed person, place, thing, orinstitution that has significance in its original literary andhistorical context but also points toward someone or something inlater biblical revelation. The “antitype” denotes thatwhich is prefigured by the original type. By means of typology, andto some degree, analogy, the NT writers demonstrate later revelationas superseding or fulfilling OT prophecies, underscoring thecontinuity of the NT with the OT and emphasizing its role astheologically transformative and expansive. Some predominant examplesinclude the Passover lamb as a type of Christ (1Pet. 1:19; cf.Rev. 5:11–14), the Aaronic priesthood compared and contrastedas a precursor of Christ’s priestly ministry (Heb. 5; 7–9),and the earthly tabernacle as a pattern for the heavenly tabernacle(Heb.9).
TheNT writers were also fond of analogy, delineating points ofcomparison between OT characters and accounts with NT teachings. Forinstance, Rom. 4 sets forth a lengthy discourse comparing Abraham’sjustification by faith and the new relationship experienced bybelievers who are justified by faith through Christ. Analogy andtypology are not mutually exclusive, as in the case of Rom. 4.Closely related to these hermeneutical methods is the infrequent useof allegory by the NT writers, such as the allegory of Sarah andHagar in Gal. 4:21–31. The distinction lies in the nature ofallegorical approach, which focuses on symbolism, or a “ ‘this’really means ‘that’ ” interpretationalframework.
TheRoles of Context and Authorial Intent
Scholarscontinue to debate the extent to which the OT context influences andaffects the NT message, particularly in the case of citations orallusions. Some suggest that biblical quotations are purelyincidental and should be divorced from their original contextualmoorings and evaluated independent of those contexts, while othersunderstand the original context of an OT passage to contributeinformation that leads to correct NT interpretation. The questionrevolves around determining the degree of authorial intent. In otherwords, to what extent can today’s reader, historically removedby time and culture, recover the original intention behind thebiblical writer’s calculated and deliberate use of an OT textas an interpretational tool? Current scholarship continues to debatethe role of authorial intent in the innerbiblical exegetical process.
Definitionof Terms
Theterm “pagan” has two separate but related definitions inthe English language, both of which are somewhat misleading whenapplied to religions in the ancient Near East. The first definitiondefines a pagan as someone who follows a less-established religion ora person who is outside the mainstream of belief within a givensociety. Applying this definition to an ancient Near Eastern religionis somewhat misleading because often within biblical society theJewish or Christian belief system was the religion that was outsidethe mainstream. Being outside the mainstream certainly was a fact oflife for first-century Christians, who often were persecuted as ifthey were atheists and for their failure to acknowledge a pantheon ofgods, which was a mainstream belief. In OT society the competingreligions, especially the Canaanite and Babylonian pantheons,certainly were more widely accepted and followed. Even withinIsraelite society these non-Israelite religions offered a viablealternative to the religion of Yahweh. Thus, if one were to use thisdefinition either in the OT or the NT, it likely would need to beapplied to the religion of the Jews and Christians and not theprevailing religions of the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Greeks,or the Romans.
Thesecond English definition of the term “pagan” involvesthe worship of the gods or forces of nature that control the world.This definition is applied specifically to agrarian societies, wherethe changing of seasons, the bringing of favorable weather andgrowing conditions for the crops, the possibility for prosperity thatgood weather brings, and a general desire for fertility are part ofthe religious understanding and belief system. While this definitioncertainly applies to many of the non-Israelite religions followed bythe Israelites’ neighbors and to some of the Greeks and Romansof the NT, it also would apply to many of the followers of Yahweh inthe OT who saw Yahweh as the God of the mountains and storms indirect conflict with the Baal myth, which ascribed these traits toBaal (see below). Therefore, it is prudent to remember that the label“pagan gods” is anachronistic and should be used withcare when discussing the religions described in the Bible.
Ona related note, the terminology of “idolatry” is alsooften misunderstood. Most of the non-Israelite religions discussed inthe Bible would have understood the images of their gods to berepresentations of the deity (or even a throne or meeting place forthe god) rather than an object of worship in its own right. Whilethey would have believed that the god dwelled in the object and waspresent when worship was being performed, they would not havebelieved that the object was the god. Most of the idols made in theancient Near East are indistinguishable from one another unless oneobserves their specific weapons. This, coupled with the idol’santhropomorphic representation, rather than a heavenlyrepresentation, suggests that the concern for early worshipers wasnot to worship an inanimate image, but rather to see a representationof the god who indwelled the image if worshiped correctly. It was thepresence of the god that was desired. Thus, the prohibition againstimages in the OT is a prohibition against trying to depict Yahweh inany physical form.
Whendealing with the non-Israelite gods of the Bible, it is helpful todivide them into historical periods. Within the OT, the majorgroupings of non-Israelite gods should include the gods of theCanaanites and the gods of the Babylonians (which are very similar tothe gods of the Assyrians). To a lesser degree the gods of thePhilistines, the Egyptians, and the Persians can also be considered.In the NT, the gods of the Greeks and the Romans (which often areassimilated Greek gods with new names) can be considered. Along withthese somewhat artificial historical divisions are innumerablepersonal gods and local gods worshiped by small groups of people oreven by a single town or village. For example, Gen. 31:30 referencesLaban’s gods, which Rachel steals when she leaves home totravel with Jacob. These personal gods likely played a huge role inthe day-to-day life of the average person, but most often they arelost to history. Similarly in the NT, the mystery religions of theGreeks and the Romans likely played an important role in the lives ofmany people, but they are difficult to reconstruct because of thelimited amount of documentation that has survived.
CanaanitePantheon
Thereis considerable overlap between the Canaanite pantheon and those ofthe Mesopotamian cultures, and often this can create some confusionabout the deities being discussed, especially their names andfunctions. Further complicating matters, the descriptions of godswithin the Mesopotamian pantheons often have fluid identities, asdifferent textual traditions conflict with each other at times. Boththe Canaanite and the Babylonian pantheons borrow heavily from theSumerian pantheon, which adds both to their similarities and to thepossibility of confusion.
Withoutquestion, the most important god within the Canaanite pantheon wasBaal. The story of Baal, often called the “Baal Cycle,”describes the life and deeds of Baal. The cult of Baal was afertility religion, and all the events of Baal’s life wereconnected to the changing seasons and nature’s fertility. TheBaal Cycle also explained how the worship of Baal affected theagricultural success of farmers. This detailed story of Baal was allbut unknown, except for a few details that could be gleaned from theBible, prior to the accidental discovery of the city of Ugarit andits extensive library in 1928 by a farmer plowing his field. The cityof Ugarit appears to have been a major trading center between theyears of about 1450 and 1200 BC. Besides Baal, other importantdeities within the pantheon were El, the elderly, long-bearded fathergod; Asherah, El’s wife, or occasionally portrayed as Baal’swife or sister; and Mot, the god of death, usually represented as asnake.
Baalwas the god of weather, especially thunder, lightning, and rain (Baalis almost always depicted with a lightning bolt in one hand and a rodof power in the other). Other representations or symbols of Baalinclude the bull (the strongest and most powerful animal of theancient Near East), water, mist, dew, grain, oil, and any othersymbol of fertility. Worship of Baal was intended to keep him happyin order to assure the coming of spring (preferably, early), thenecessary rain for crops, and finally the lengthening of summer sothat two crops could be planted and harvested. The second crop, whichoften was the crop that a farmer could sell for a profit (the firstbeing reserved for the farmer’s own food), was especially tiedto the favor of Baal. Baal was worshiped not only in hope ofa*gricultural prosperity but also for family fertility in terms ofchildren and for help in battle. The primary means for producing andkeeping the favor of Baal was by offering the firstfruits of anyharvest to him. When the first portion of a crop was harvested, itwas expected that a portion of that harvest (most often a tithe) beoffered to Baal in hopes of receiving his favor and extending thegrowing season. Not only were the first of the crops to be given toBaal but also the firstborn of all herded animals. It was also acommon practice for the firstborn of a family to be given to Baal inhuman sacrifice. Baal is often referred to as Molek in the Bible(e.g., Jer. 19) when describing human sacrifice. Another practice ofBaal worship was ritual sexual intercourse between a worshiper and apriest or a priestess. This ritual sexual activity was thought toincrease the fertility of the worshiper, thereby increasing thechances of having more children.
Apparentlyfor much of the history of Israel, especially during the monarchy,Baal worship offered an enticing alternative to the worship ofYahweh. In fact, the stories of Elijah and Elisha serve as a directpolemic against Baal worship. Most of the stories of Elijah andElisha use the symbols of Baal to demonstrate that Yahweh is muchstronger than Baal. By the time of the first century AD, Baal worshipwas a thing of the past, but some vestiges of the worship remained.For example, in the Gospels Jesus says that a person cannot worshipboth “God and money” (KJV: “mammon”) (Matt.6:24; Luke 16:13). The Greek word translated “money,”mamōnas, is borrowed from Aramaic and actually refers to theworship of Baal, but by Jesus’ time it had evolved to take onthe more generic definition “prosperity.”
Alongwith Baal, the worship of Asherah, a female member of the pantheon,was common. Although scholars are not completely sure of its form, itis believed that the reference in the OT to “Asherah poles”was likely a reference to a phallic symbol that represented fertility(Judg. 6:26; 1Kings 14:23). Recently, several references toAsherah have been discovered in Kuntillet ‘Ajrud innortheastern Sinai, dated to about the eighth century. Theseinscriptions say that Asherah was the consort of Yahweh rather thanBaal, providing further evidence for the amount of syncretism presentin Israel during the monarchy. Another female deity, Ashtoreth (knownalso by her Mesopotamian name, “Ishtar”), is called“Queen of Heaven” several times in the book of Jeremiah(7:18; 44:17–19,25).
Inrelationship to the infiltration of Baal worship into the northernkingdom is the debate about the nature of the “sin of Jeroboam”that was instituted by JeroboamI when he, along with the tennorthern tribes, ceded from Israel (1Kings 12:25–33). Atissue is whether Jeroboam was instituting a new religion based on thecalves, thus becoming syncretistic with these tribes’ northernPhoenician neighbors (which would have been tantamount to introducingBaal worship into Israel), or simply rejecting the centrality ofJerusalem for Yahweh worship (which only a few years before had beencentralized in Jerusalem by Solomon’s temple, resulting in thedisenfranchisem*nt of the Levites outside Jerusalem). Clearly, thesouthern kingdom viewed the events as apostasy, but whether thenorthern tribes did is unclear. Amos, for example, seems to focus hiscriticism of the cult at Bethel not on the worship itself but ratheron the hypocrisy of the worshipers, who were not following the law asprescribed in the Torah.
BabylonianPantheon
Althoughdebate continues over the exact relationship between the two, theBabylonian pantheon had many elements similar to the Canaanitepantheon. There are dozens of primary documents about the religion ofBabylon; the most important of them include the Enuma Elish, acreation story and apologetic for Marduk the chief of gods; theAtrahasis Epic, which has a version of the flood story in it; and theEpic of Gilgamesh, which describes the quest for eternal life by KingGilgamesh. Within the Babylonian pantheon, Marduk is the chief ofgods, who is also the patron god of Babylonia. The Enuma Elish, whichdescribes the creation of the world, deals primarily with theascension of Marduk to the role of chief god by destroying the forcesof chaos represented by the monster Tiamat and bringing order to boththe pantheon and the natural world. Marduk, like Baal, had retainedthe most powerful cosmic weapons, which include water, rain, and war.The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the journey of King Gilgamesh, who ispart human and part divine, in search of immortality. During thecourse of his trip, he learns that eternal life is reserved for thegods, and humans must make their mark on the world by what they doduring their lives. The Babylonian religion and pantheon exerted itsstrongest influence on Israel during the exile. The biblical textclearly has been influenced by these Babylonian beliefs. However, theBible consistently presents these viewpoints as contrary to the trueworship of Yahweh and insists that only Yahweh deserves worship asthe true creator of the world, vanquisher of chaos, and provider ofprosperity and life.
OtherAncient Near Eastern Pantheons
TheEgyptian gods are mentioned only briefly in the Bible. The most overtreferences to the gods of Egypt are found in the story of the tenplagues, which most scholars believe was a direct attack on thedeities of Egypt by Yahweh. It is unclear if the calf described inExod. 32 should be understood as an Egyptian god, a completely new ordifferent god, or as a forbidden representation of Yahweh.
Littleis known about the Philistine pantheon of gods, but it appears to bequite similar to the Canaanite pantheon (if not the same with localvariations). The Philistines’ chief god, referred to in theBible as “Dagon” (Judg. 16:23; 1Sam. 5:2–7;1Chron. 10:10), likely also went by the name “Baal-Zebul”(“Lord Prince”), which in the OT is mocked by beingchanged to “Baal-Zebub” (“Lord of the Flies”)(2Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16). In the NT, this god is recalledwhen the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Satan (Matt.12:24; Luke 11:15 [Gk. Beelzeboul]). Because the Philistines wereknown as the Sea Peoples, it is not surprising that this deity hadseveral fishlike qualities (including a fish tail).
NewTestament Religion
Inthe NT, the Greek pantheon that was subsumed by the Roman pantheonwas the common religious expression of the day. Like other ancientpantheons, these pantheons tried to explain the natural world by theinvolvement of various deities in nature. Proof that Jews living inthe province of Judah were under constant pressure to assimilate tothe Greek religion is provided in the reports of the books ofMaccabees that describe the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids inwhat was essentially a religious war against assimilation. In theGospels, little is said about the Greek or Roman pantheons, but thebook of Acts contains several reports of Paul’s interactionwith the Greeks and their religious practices. Especially notable isPaul’s interaction with the Athenians when he debatedphilosophers who were followers of the “Unknown God”(Acts 17:23). Three other deities are named in Acts, includingArtemis in Ephesus (Acts 19:24, 27–28, 34–35), whom theRomans called “Diana,” and Zeus and Hermes (Acts14:12–13), called “Jupiter” and “Mercury”by the Romans, whom Paul and Barnabas were mistaken for in Lystrawhen Paul preached and healed a crippled man.
Summary
Theproblem of God’s people Israel worshiping other gods permeatesmost of biblical history. These reports range over time from theearly story of Rachel in Genesis, to the period of the judges whenMicah’s images (Judg. 17:1–6) and Gideon’s ephod(Judg. 8:26–27) were worshiped, to when Solomon and his wiveswere worshiping foreign gods (1Kings 11:5–8), to the timeof Ahab when all Israel followed Baal, whom Elijah vanquished onMount Carmel (1Kings 18:16–46). Depending on when onedates the book of Deuteronomy, the strong prohibitions againstidolatry either went unheeded (if Moses wrote the book) or were aculminating statement of the anti-idolatry Deuteronomistic writerjust before the exile. There is considerable debate about when Israelbecame an exclusively monotheistic nation (if it ever did), but bythe eighth century BC, Isaiah and Amos castigate worshipers of thesefalse gods. Clearly, by the time of Jeremiah, some factions withinIsrael (the prophet included) have begun to question whether the godsof the other nations even exist (Jer. 2:28). Finally, with thedestruction of the temple in Jerusalem, ironically, the worship ofother gods is ended. It is certain that by the time of the firstcentury AD, the evolution to a monotheistic view is complete, andPaul can claim that an “idol is nothing” (1Cor.8:4), and that any sin is tantamount to idolatry (Eph.5:5).
A pit dug in the ground to trap animals. In several places inthe Bible, the pitfall is used figuratively to describe the attemptsof enemies to harm the biblical speaker by setting a metaphoricaltrap (Pss. 57:6; 119:85; Jer. 18:22).
An intimate, exclusive, lifelong covenant relationshipbetween a man and a woman wherein a new family is established.
Theologyof Marriage
Thebiblical basis for marriage is recorded in Gen. 2:18–24, whichestablishes a number of important points relating to marriage.
First,in Gen. 2:18 God highlights the first expressed inadequacy withincreation: the man is alone. The solution to the man’s solitudeis found not among the animals (a fact demonstrated by the carefulsearch expressed by having the man name each of them) but in acreature specifically created to address the problem of his solitude:woman. She is created from his “rib” (a bettertranslation is “side”), so that she is more like him thanany of the animals. In spite of this, she is not a clone, but rathera complement to him. She is described as a “helper suitable forhim,” which highlights her fulfillment of the inadequacy Godhad previously identified.
Second,the role of the wife is not restricted to providing a means by whichto fulfill the command to fill the earth (through bearing children),for the problem identified in Gen. 2:18 cannot be reduced to thisalone. The OT establishes that human beings are relational andsocial, and that isolation is not good, quite aside fromconsiderations relating to childbearing. Indeed, when marriage isemployed as a metaphor for the relationship between God and hispeople (see below), it can be conceptualized quite apart from thenotion of procreation, suggesting that the latter should not beconsidered the primary purpose of marriage.
Third,Gen. 2:23 describes the relationship between the man and the woman interms strongly reminiscent of the traditional kinship formula usedwith reference to family members elsewhere in the OT: “bone ofmy bones, and flesh of my flesh” (cf., e.g., Gen. 29:14; Judg.9:2; 2Sam. 5:1; 19:13–14—similar to the modernEnglish expression “my flesh and blood”; see also Matt.19:5; Eph. 5:31). Although “be united” (othertranslations use “cleave”) and “one flesh”are frequently understood to refer to sexual union, this is not theonly, or even the primary, implication of the words. Genesis 2:24expresses the unification of the husband and the wife as theantithesis of the man’s leaving his father and mother. Theseterms (“leave” or “forsake,” “beunited” or “cleave”) are used elsewhere incovenantal contexts. “Cleave” is usually used of peoplein the sense of clinging to another out of affection and loyalty(Gen. 34:3; Ruth 1:14; 2Sam. 20:2; 1Kings 11:2). It isalso frequently used of Israel clinging to God (Deut. 10:20; 11:22;13:5; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8). “Forsake” is used ofbreaking covenants (Deut. 12:19; 14:27; 29:25; Jer. 1:16; 2:13, 17,19; 5:7; 16:11; 17:13; 19:4; 22:9). The verb also appears in thecontext of marital divorce in Prov. 2:16–17; Isa. 54:6; 62:4.
Theimplication of Gen. 2:24 is that the man was formerly “united”to his parents in a familial relationship, but when he marries, thecovenantal relationship with his parents is superseded by the newrelationship with his wife. Thus, in establishing the covenantalrelationship of marriage, the man and the woman form a new familyunit (they become “one flesh,” which parallels thekinship formula more fully expressed in Gen. 2:23). It is noteworthythat Gen. 2 thus defines a family as husband and wife; a family isformed before any children are born. Furthermore, the emphasis on thepriority of the relationship between husband and wife is particularlystriking, given both the importance of honoring one’s parents(Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16) and the distinctly patrilocal nature ofinheritance whereby sons would remain in the parents’ householdafter marriage and ultimately inherit a share of it, but daughterswould leave their parents’ house to be with their husbands.
Fourth,the description of the woman as the man’s “helper”cannot alone be used to demonstrate that the wife’s role waseither subordinate or superior to her husband’s. Although theterm is elsewhere often used as a description of God, it is also usedof subordinate helpers, and other contextual indications determinethe relative status of the helper aside from the use of the termitself.
Marriagein the Old Testament
TheBible presents few formal legal, liturgical, or cultic requirementsfor marriage (whereas there are specific laws dealing with divorce),although it does record some details of specific marriages from whichsome insight into marriage practices can be gleaned. Marriages oftenwere established through an arrangement between the parents of thehusband and those of the wife or between the husband and the parentsof his prospective wife (e.g., Gen. 24; 38:6), but there appears tobe some diversity, with examples of a man choosing his own wife(e.g., Judah in Gen. 38:2) or instances when the consent of the womanis sought (e.g., Gen. 24:8, 58). The requirement of a formalcertificate for divorce (Deut. 24:1, 3), together with examples ofmarriage contracts from the ancient Near East, are possible evidencethat marriage within Israel required certification, although there isno explicit confirmation of this in the OT or in Israel prior to therabbinic period. The marriages recorded in the OT often involvedfeasts of varying duration (Gen. 29:22; Judg. 14:12), the bride beingaccompanied to her home in a festive procession that included musicand singing (Ps. 78:63; Jer. 7:34; 16:9), and a blessing pronouncedover the bride that she might bear many children (Gen. 24:60; Ruth4:11). Deuteronomy 22:15 suggests that evidence of the bride’svirginity was retained by the wife’s family to guard againstfalse accusations by a husband seeking divorce.
Anotheraspect of marriage that appears to have been normative although notlegislated was the payment of a mohar, or “bride-price”(Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1Sam. 18:25), as well as theprovision of a dowry (1Kings 9:16). The former was a paymentmade by the groom’s family to the bride’s family, thelatter an amount given by the father to his daughter. Typically, theformer appears to have exceeded the latter in value. The bride-price,at least in later times, functioned as insurance should the wife bedivorced.
TheBible does not issue any specific age constraints upon those beingmarried, indicating that the OT practice probably did not differsignificantly from that of other nations in the ancient Near East,where girls were considered ready for marriage once they had reachedpuberty or the age of twelve, and boys were generally slightly older.Constraints were placed on the eligibility of marriage partners, andgenerally marriages were endogamous: marriage partners were chosenfrom within the clan, tribe, or nation (e.g., Gen. 24:1–9;27:46–28:5; cf. Deut. 7:3, which prohibits marriage with some,but not all, foreigners, and Deut. 21:10–14, which permitsIsraelite warriors to take a wife from among female prisoners ofwar). While there were exceptions to this constraint (e.g., Mosesmarried a Midianite; Bathsheba was married to a Hittite; Boaz marriedRuth, a Moabite), in later times the restriction was given legalsanction under Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 9:2, 12; Neh. 13:25; cf. Luke14:26; 18:29).
Inspite of the likelihood that many marriages in the OT and the ancientworld in general were arranged, the notion of romantic love as bothan ideal for marriage and a basis for choosing one’s spouseclearly was known and even regarded as desirable. This is reflectedin the approbation given romantic love in Song of Songs as well as instories such as that of Jacob (Gen. 29:18; see also Judg. 14:1–3;1Sam. 18:20).
Socially,marriage was of particular import for a woman in the ancient world,for her well-being usually depended on her place within the house ofeither her father or her husband. Because inheritance was passed downthe male line, women without connection to the house of a man were ina very tenuous state. Inheritance itself was also an important issuein the ancient world, and so great value was placed not just onmarriage but also on bearing children (particularly male [see alsoFirstborn]). Associated with these social functions of marriage inancient Israel is the fact that the OT permits and records a numberof instances of polygamy (always polygyny, never polyandry). Thisafforded social security to widows (see also Levirate Law, LevirateMarriage) and helped ensure the line of inheritance. It should benoted, however, that neither the welfare aspect of marriage nor therelated acceptance of polygamy is based on the biblical foundationfor marriage in Gen. 2, and consequently, polygamy does not reflectthe biblical ideal for marriage.
Thefundamental importance of the marriage relationship is alsohighlighted by the severity of the penalties for adultery (e.g.,Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18; 22:22–24; see also Adultery).
Marriagein the New Testament
Jesusreinforces the importance of marriage, emphasizing its divine originand lifelong nature (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9) as well as itsinviolability (Mark 10:2–12). In light of this, Jesus’assertion that at the resurrection there will be no marriage issurprising (Matt. 22:30). Although Jesus offers no explanation as towhy there will be no marriage following the resurrection, it isperhaps likely that the fundamental need identified by God in Gen.2:18 (the man was alone) will be solved in a different manner in theage to come: the intimate help and companionship ideally found inmarriage will be provided in perfected relationship with God and allothers.
Paulelaborates somewhat on marriage in the Christian community. Christianmarriage ought to be characterized by mutual submission in somerespects (1Cor. 7:4; Eph. 5:21) while reflecting someasymmetrical aspects of the relationship between Christ and thechurch in others (Eph. 5:22–33). Christians ought to marrywithin the church (2Cor. 6:14–18, although this passageis not restricted to marriage); however, those who are married tononbelievers are not to seek divorce, but are to remain faithful totheir spouses for the sake of both the spouse and their children(1Cor. 7:10–16).
TheNT makes reference to some of the marriage customs of the day,including sharing a feast (Matt. 22:2–12; Luke 12:36; John2:1–11), the expectation that guests be suitably attired (Matt.22:11–12), and a procession to the groom’s home (Matt.25:1–13; Luke 12:35–38).
SymbolicUse of Marriage
Marriageis used figuratively in both Testaments. The relationship between Godand his people is described with marriage language (Isa. 62:4–5;Jer. 2:2). By using such language, the prophets emphasize theintimacy and unity inherent in the relationship between God and hischosen people, as well as the devastating betrayal when the covenantis broken. The use of the marriage metaphor is thus extended to theuse of divorce language to describe God’s treatment ofunfaithful Israel (Jer. 3:8), and the notion of adultery andpromiscuity is equated with the worship of foreign gods (Ezek. 16;23). The prophet Hosea’s marriage is itself a graphicrepresentation of God’s relationship with his people and, inparticular, their faithlessness; however, it also holds out theanticipation of a new covenant, one wherein God declares, “Youwill call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘mymaster’ ” (Hos. 2:16). The metaphorical use ofmarriage to image the relationship between God and his people alsoreflects the implicit belief in the asymmetrical nature of therelationship between husband and wife in the ancient world.
TheNT primarily identifies the church as the bride and Christ as thehusband when using marriage language figuratively (e.g., Eph.5:22–33). In so doing, the NT affirms Christ’s deity byexplicitly depicting him in the place occupied by God in the OT’suse of marriage symbolism. Jesus uses marriage in his parabolicteaching about the kingdom of God (Matt. 22:2–14; 25:1–12),as well as in reference to himself as bridegroom when explaining thebehavior of his disciples (Mark 2:19–20; Luke 5:34–35).Revelation depicts the return of Christ as the time of the marriagebetween the bride and the bridegroom (Rev. 19:7; 21:9).
Potteryin the Bible
TheBible contains numerous references to pottery, pottery making, andpotters. Clay pottery was the most common and easiest way to cookfood and to carry liquids throughout biblical times. Only pots usedfor very special occasions and locations (such as the temple) weremade out of a material (usually some metal) other than clay (Exod.38:3). Clay was the preferable material because it was freelyobtained, easy to manipulate, and required little technology to make.The downside of pottery is that it is easily broken and thus rendereduseless. Evidence of the abundance and affordability of pottery isseen in the instructions to break ceremonially unclean pottery ratherthan wash it (Lev. 15:12). Although cooking was the primary purposefor pottery, it could be used for a variety of applications,including storing items, carrying water, making lamps, and formingidols.
Potteryand the manufacture of pottery occasionally took on symbolicconnotations in the Bible. For example, in the psalms broken potterysymbolizes the life of the psalmist as he cries to God for help (Ps.31:12). In another psalm the psalmist envisions God destroying thenations that plot against God like someone who shatters pottery(2:9). Isaiah likens Egypt’s strength, in which Judah trustsmore than in God, to pottery ready to be shattered (Isa. 30:14).Similarly, Jeremiah says that the leaders of Judah will be punishedand will “fall and be shattered like fine pottery” (Jer.25:34 NIV mg.). Isaiah also uses several other metaphors related topottery. He says that God treads on rulers like a potter treads onclay, getting it soft and prepared for making pottery (Isa. 41:25).Isaiah also likens those who complain to God to pieces of brokenpottery trying to tell the potter how to make pots (45:9).
BothIsaiah and Jeremiah liken people to clay in God’s hand. Isaiahsays, “We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the workof your hand” (Isa. 64:8). Jeremiah says essentially the samething, but instead of using Isaiah’s positive tone, he sees thehuman molding process to be a difficult and dangerous one that canresult in the potter rejecting the creation (Jer. 18:1–10).Jeremiah buys a pot, takes it to a gate in the city, the PotsherdGate (a potsherd is a broken and useless piece of pottery), andsmashes the pot symbolically to demonstrate how God feels about Judah(Jer. 19). Jeremiah’s choice of the Potsherd Gate was also partof the symbolism, as it is likely that most of the pottery inJerusalem was made near or at the Potsherd Gate. The apostle Paulcreates a similar metaphor, describing how a potter is able to takethe same lump of clay and make different kinds of pots, some of whichhave special uses, and others common uses. Paul implies that God hasthe right to determine how and for what purpose he creates humansbecause he is like the potter with the clay (Rom. 9:21). Paul alsorefers to humans as clay jars with treasure in them (2Cor.4:7).
Inanother example, after the destruction of Jerusalem the people incaptivity lament that they are simply like earthen pots before God(Lam. 4:2), suggesting that they are ready to receive the punishmentthat God has chosen for them to endure. Job also wonders if God hasmolded him like clay only then to turn him back into dust (Job 10:9).
Manufactureof Pottery
Preparingthe clay.Before any pottery can be made, the clay must be gathered andprepared for use. Clay collected from different geographical areaswill have different levels of pure clay and other earthen materials.Pure clay is very difficult to work with, but it produces some of thesmoothest and strongest pots. Most of the clay used in Palestine wasnot of superior quality, and so most often imperfections developed inthe pots as they were being made. We also know that during the timeof the late monarchy, potters in Israel tended to mix clay withdifferent kinds of sand to produce better results. With today’sadvanced forensic technology, it often can be determined where theclay used to make a pot was harvested. Because it was generallyimpractical to transport clay any long distance, this sort ofanalysis can also be helpful in determining the origin of the pot.Once the clay was harvested, depending on its quality and use, it wasoften necessary to prepare the clay by kneading or treading it. Thisprocess was vital for removing any impurities in the clay as well asmaking it malleable.
Shaping.Historically, the first pottery molded was made by hand and dried inthe sun. Nothing is known about the role of these early potters andwhether they were highly regarded in society. Many scholars believethat early pottery was made by women, to be used for very practicalpurposes such as cooking and carrying water. It is fairly easy todetermine the gender of the potter by measuring the natural hand andfinger marks left in the clay and comparing their size inrelationship to the average size of both men’s and women’shands. These rudimentary pots usually were made by laying coils ofclay one upon another.
Althoughit is not certain, the profession of being a potter likely did notdevelop until the invention of the potter’s wheel. The potter’swheel allowed the potter to create more-sophisticated pottery andalso gave the potter the ability to mass-produce pots. Severalexamples of potter’s wheels have been excavated dating toaround 3500–3000 BC in Sumer and Ur. Most potter’s wheelsduring biblical times consisted of two wheels. A larger and heavierwheel was placed close to the ground, with a pole in the center ofthis wheel going up to a second, smaller, and lighter wheel supportedby a table. The potter used his or her foot to move the larger wheel,which turned the smaller wheel. It is also possible that anapprentice turned the larger wheel. As the technology developed,sometimes two potter’s wheels were connected to one largerwheel so that two pots could be created at the same time.
Anothermethod for making clay items was the use of press molds. Press moldswere used to fashion clay by pushing the clay into the mold and thenallowing it to dry. As the clay dried, it shrank and pulled away fromthe mold and could easily be removed from the mold. This method wasused for molding figurines (most often used as household idols) andsmall oil lamps, which often were made of two molded pieces fusedtogether.
Decoratingand firing.Once a pot was finished being shaped, either on a wheel or in a mold,it often was decorated. The pot often was painted with pigment madefrom earth. Different painting styles can help in identifying a pot’splace of origin. Another common decoration method was to imprint thepot with different seals, symbols, or patterns. This was done byusing a wooden or metal tool and pressing it into the wet clay.Examples of this method include several pots found at Gibeon stampedwith what appear to be royal seals, which likely indicate that thepots and their contents belonged to the king. Much of the potteryfrom in and around Jerusalem has a red burnish applied to seal thepot and to add a smooth finish to the outside. By the time of themonarchy, potters were very sophisticated in their choice ofmaterials and often had some of the materials, such as special sands,imported from a considerable distance. These sands added to thesmoothness of the fired pot by creating a glaze on it.
Oncethe decoration of the pot was finished, the pot was dried in order toreveal any imperfections. If any imperfections were observed duringdrying, the pot was discarded. If no imperfections were seen, the potwas then fired. Depending on the potter’s resources and thetechnology the potter knew, the firing process could be as simple asplacing the pot in a hot fire or could include the use ofsophisticated kilns capable of producing extremely high and evenheat. Firing a pot was extremely difficult, because ideally the heatis kept at a constant temperature throughout the process, which wasnot an easy task when using an open flame for the heating source.Because the process of firing pots was a well-guarded trade secret,we know few details of how pots were fired during biblical times.
Typesof Pottery
Thereare several general categories of pottery, which are based on theircharacteristics and intended uses. Of course, for some extantexamples of pottery from archaeological digs, their usage cannot bedetermined. Tableware included cups, plates, bowls, and jugs. Theseitems tended to be more decorated than other pottery, much liketableware today tends to be more decorative than cooking pots.Cooking pots included pots with small, narrow rims and flat, openpans for frying and uncovered cooking. Storage vessels came in allsizes: pithoi, jars (two-handled), jugs (one-handled), smaller jugs(with no handles), and very small vessels for perfumes and othervaluable liquids. Also, it is not unusual to find various sizes oflamps.
Importanceof Pottery for Archaeology
Potteryhas become an important dating tool for archaeologists. While writtentexts do provide more archaeological data than pottery and religiousor cultural artifacts can be more visually interesting, it is potterythat helps the archaeologist piece all the information together.
Historyof dating pottery. Whiledoing archaeological work in Egypt, Flinders Petrie noticed that fordifferent time periods of Egyptian history there were different kindsof pottery, with very distinct and identifiable characteristics.These identifiable pottery characteristics included things such asthe thickness of the wall of the pot, the type of rim or lip on thepot, the pot’s handles, and any special decorative elements.These characteristics, Petrie discovered, could be used to date sitesthat had no other dating information. Petrie carefully logged eachpiece of pottery found at each site and over time developed anextensive catalog of pottery types and their respective dating.Later, while digging at Tell el-Hesi in Palestine, Petrie noticedthat each layer, or stratum, of the tell (archaeological mound) had adifferent type of pottery, much like the different kinds of potteryhe had noticed in Egypt. Because of his careful and painstaking workin Egypt, Petrie also noticed that the different types of pottery inPalestine were similar to those that he had uncovered in Egypt. As aresult, Petrie was able to develop a chronology of pottery that couldbe used to date different archaeological digs and strata in theentire ancient Near East. Later, W.F. Albright expanded onPetrie’s work by adding several sublayers and further refiningthe dating of each time period of pottery.
Tohelp explain this significant discovery, L.E. Stager uses theexample of how bottles for soft drinks have changed over the years.For example, he notes that when soda bottles were firstmass-marketed, the writing on the bottle was part of the glass withraised letters. Over time the bottle changed and evolved; differenttypes of writing were used on glass bottles until ultimately thebottles were smooth and the words were painted on them. In morerecent years soda bottles have been made of plastic. This evolutionof the soda bottle can roughly illustrate the changes in pottery overtime. Because this method of dating depends on a catalog ofdocumented pottery, it requires that all pottery found, no matter howinsignificant, be cataloged and recorded so that others can comparethe pottery finds from one place with those in other places.
Timeperiods.In the dating of ancient Near Eastern pottery, history is dividedinto broad time periods that are then further subdivided. The MiddleBronze Age (c. 2200–1550 BC) encompasses the time of theearliest biblical stories, including perhaps the stories of thepatriarchs. During this period and the Early Bronze Age (c. 3300–2200BC), the artisanship evident in the pottery was limited, and pots hadlittle or no decoration; however, the skill applied to the vesselshad improved dramatically from the prior period, the Chalcolithic(4500–3300 BC). These vessels show thin walls and evidence ofmass production.
TheLate Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC), which likely includes thetime of Moses and perhaps Joshua, shows an unusual and dramaticdecrease in the quality of local Canaanite pottery. There is no knownexplanation for this deterioration, but it is evident. At the sametime, pottery from other coastal regions, especially Mycenaean Greeceand Crete, is very common, and pots from these locations are quitesophisticated and highly decorated. This indicates that during thistime there was a strong cultural influence from these areas. Somehave suggested that this is due to the colonization of parts ofPalestine by the Sea Peoples, who perhaps are the Philistines ofbiblical history.
TheIron Age (c. 1200–586 BC), which encompasses the time periodfrom the Israelite conquest and settlement through the monarchy,demonstrates more low-quality pottery, especially early in thisperiod. In contrast with the examples of pottery manufactured locallyat Israelite sites, Philistine pottery is quite sophisticated, highlydecorated with red and black duotones in geometric patterns. Thelater pottery of the monarchy shows much more skill andsophistication.
ThePersian (539–332 BC), Hellenistic (332–63 BC), and Romanperiods (after 63 BC) conclude the biblical periods. Each of theseperiods is dominated by the aesthetics and quality of the invadingcountries’ pottery. By this time, trade routes were stronglyestablished, and so the invaders, it appears, flooded the marketswith their pottery, often to the detriment of the local potters.
Exodus 1:16 refers to a “delivery stool” (NIV), atranslation of the Hebrew ’obnayim.This may refer to an object or an arrangement of stones or blocks setside by side on which a woman sat to give birth. The same Hebrew wordin Jer. 18:3 refers to a potter’s wheel. The “footstool”is associated with thrones of ancient rulers and symbolized power orauthority (Isa. 66:1; Heb. 10:13). In 2Kings 4:10 the stool isa simple chair.
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Implements utilized for the purpose of craftsmanship in somemanner, whether in agriculture, commerce, or artistry.
Materials
Itcan be assumed that early Israelites used tools made of wood, bones,and ivory for the handles, and stone for the working part of thetool. Stone tools were utilized for pounding, grinding, and cutting.Many examples of stone tools have been discovered throughout theancient Near East. Early farmers and workers used some of the morebasic tools, such as hammers, pestles, knives, and chisels.
Sometools were used almost exclusively for the construction of othertools. Spherical instruments made out of diorite or some other veryhard substance were used to fashion an instrument into a usableshape. Thanks to their hardness and round shape, they rarelysplintered and could be used with reasonable force.
Onlycertain types of stone could be turned into a cutting utensil. Thestone had to have both a requisite hardness and a crystalline natureto be transformed into a blade. Only chert and flint meet suchcriteria, but only flint was readily available to the nomad, beingfound in the form of nodules and small cobbles in deposits oflimestone. Because of flint’s brittleness, the artisan had totake great care in the amount of pressure applied in making a knife.The fact that so many examples of flint knives are no larger than afew centimeters suggests that this was easier said than done. Flintknives were used by the Israelites in sacred rituals, includingcircumcision (Josh. 5:2).
Metalsbegan to be used for utensils at roughly the same time Israel enteredthe promised land. Bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, was used forweaponry and for everyday utensils. The molten alloy was poured intomolds made from stone and then shaped and formed by a smith. Asimilar process was used for iron in the periods following theinstitution of the monarchy. Early Israel apparently had few if anyblacksmiths capable of such work, since the Scriptures record thatthe Israelites went to the Philistines for production of their irontools (1Sam. 13:19). Even after the advent of alloys, however,there seems to have been a preference for the more primitive flintknives, especially in sacred ceremonies, possibly because flintmaintained a sharper edge longer, or perhaps because there was acertain taboo associated with the mixing of metals. The applicationof the profane to the sacred would have rendered the ceremony unfitfor God.
Typesof Tools
Knives.Kniveswere made in various sizes. The smallest version is referred to inJehoiakim’s destruction of Jeremiah’s manuscript in Jer.36:23 (some English versions distinguish it as a “scribe’sknife” [NIV] or “penknife” [NRSV]). This same knife(Heb. ta’ar) also was used for shaving (Num. 6:5) and appearsin imagery related to sharpness or exactness (Ps. 52:2; Isa. 7:20).Between six inches and a foot long would have been the more normallength of knives used for everyday tasks such as butchering (Gen.22:6).
Agriculturaltools. Theplow came in various sizes and forms. In the more fertile areas,plowshares were unnecessary, and a smaller utensil similar to a hoewas used simply to break up the topsoil (1Sam. 13:21). Theinstrument also was used on more uneven terrain, where a typicalanimal-drawn plowshare would not work. It was actually thisinstrument that would have been turned into a weapon of war or, inthe case of everlasting peace, transformed back into a farmingutensil (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). In more arid regions, where the soilwas more hardened and difficult to break up, the larger plowshare wasused. In a fashion well known in the Western world, the largerplowshare was harnessed to a beast of burden and guided through thefarmer’s field to prepare the land for sowing.
Harvestinginvolved the utilization of various tools. Grain was first cut with asickle (Jer. 50:16). In the ancient Near East, the sickle handletypically was short and could be held in one hand. The blade usuallywas composed ofa jawbone or curved shaft fitted with pieces offlint or other sharp objects. As an instrument of harvest, the sicklealso became a picture of judgment and ingathering (Joel 3:13; Mark4:29). For harvesting grapes, a pruning hook, which was very similarin appearance to a sickle but smaller, was used (Isa. 2:4).
Handtools. Severalsmall hand tools were similar to their modern expressions but wereused for different purposes. An awl is used to bore holes. In theancient Near East, this tool was made of stone, bone, or metal. Oneof the more distinctive uses for this tool in ancient times was topierce ears (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Saws were made with a woodenhandle on either one end or both ends. An ancient tradition says thatIsaiah was sawn in two (cf. Heb. 11:37). Axes were used for fellingtrees (Deut. 19:5; Matt. 3:10) but also for cutting stones andremoving them from quarries (1Kings 6:7). Early models werecrafted from stone, but by the time of Israel’s nationhood theimplement was almost always made of iron. This is demonstrated atplaces where an ax head is referred to with barzel,the Hebrew word for “iron” (Deut. 19:5; 2Kings6:5).
Constructionand craftsmanship tools.When it came to building and craftsmanship, the Israelites again usedinstruments quite similar to those employed by modern counterparts.The Israelites used hammers (Isa. 44:12) made of stone, with woodenhandles, for large construction jobs. They also had several types ofchisels and other carving utensils (Exod. 32:4; Deut. 15:17). Forhammering these chisels and carving utensils, a large wooden mallet,similar to those used by craftspeople today, probably was used. Aplumb line was used for ensuring that walls were straight. Thissimple device consisted of a length of string with a weight tied tothe end. The plumb line was held up against a wall as it was beingbuilt in order to determine if the wall was consistently vertical. Assuch, it served as an appropriate image for whether Israel wasstraight in relation to its covenant with God (Amos 7:7–9).Potters used a pottery wheel (Jer. 18:3), and weavers used a loomwith a web in order to create intricate patterns of cloth (Judg.16:13–14). Blacksmiths used bellows, tongs, and hammersdesigned especially for their work (Isa. 44:12).
Bythe time of the NT, artisans were far more dependent on iron for mostof their tools. Advances in smelting and in the manipulation of thealloys allowed the crude iron of previous eras to begin approachingthe tempered steel of the Middle Ages. This permitted moreflexibility in how utensils such as hammers could be used and allowedfor more effective chisels to be created. As a result, craftsmanshipin stone, marble, and other hard surfaces became more prevalent, andossuaries, statues, and building facades became more ornate andintricate in design. Multiple examples of such craftwork have beenunearthed in archaeological digs.
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Covenant is one of the most significant concepts in thebiblical material that affects our understanding of God, hisrelationship with his people (past, present, and future), and thestructure and message of his word. Since the covenant concept is nota unique biblical idea, comparative literature from the world of theScriptures has enriched our understanding of the nature and thefunction of covenant. This article highlights the covenant conceptand the genre of covenant and provides a brief overview of the majorbiblical covenants.
Terminology
Defining“covenant.”What is a covenant (Heb. berit)? Most dictionaries refer to it as apact/compact or an agreement. Although there is some uncertaintyregarding the etymology of berit, the two most commonly suggestedetymological derivations are from the Akkadian burru, which refers tothe establishment of a legal situation by a testimony with an oath,or the Akkadian bittu, often translated as “to bind, fetter.”The NT counterpart word is diathēkē, defined as a “legaldisposition of personal goods.” Interestingly, this NT term isused in reference to the initiative of one person who establishes theterms and provisions of the relationship, which is in keeping withunilateral OT covenants. Some OT dictionaries list the “covenant”root with the root for the word “to eat,” perhapsassociating the covenant with a covenant meal.
Ifthe concept of binding best represents the covenant terminology, thenthe covenant is something that binds parties together or obligatesone party to the other. Although there are legal implicationsassociated with covenant, the relational aspect of covenant shouldnot be overlooked. A covenant is best understood as a relationshipwith related legalities. Marriage, for example, is a covenant thatestablishes and defines a relationship. This perhaps explains why Godchose from the realm of relationships among humans the covenantmetaphor to establish and communicate his intent in divine-humanrelationships. The concept of a covenant relationship between God andpeople is uniquely developed in the biblical material.
Somecovenants are between persons of equal status (parity treaties);others are between a master and a servant (suzerainty treaties),between nations, between clans, and between a husband and a wife(Mal. 2:14). To “cut a covenant” at any level of societyimplies a solemn commitment to a relationship. Hittite treatiesillustrate reports of covenant commitments that include a record ofnegotiations, formulations of terms, a statement that the act ofcovenant making actually happened, and a closure of negotiations withsolemn ratification of the terms.
Themost significant covenant relationship in the biblical material isthe one between God and humankind. The uniqueness of Israel’scovenant relationship with Yahweh in contrast to all surroundingnations is established on the basis of Deut. 32:8–9. AlthoughYahweh gave the nations their inheritance, he selected Israel for hisown personal care; he established a relationship with the nationindependent of and prior to the nation’s association with hisland. This was a unique application of the covenant that ran counterto the prevailing Semitic mind-set, which connected deities tospecific geographic territories first and was concerned with theinhabitants of those areas only in a secondary sense. Individual OTbelievers celebrated their relationship with Yahweh and proclaimedhim as the unrivaled universal God (Exod. 15; 1 Sam. 2; Isa.40).
Otherkey terms.In addition to the “covenant” terminology word group,several other key terms fill out our understanding of this importantconcept.
“Oath”is a term used synonymously with “covenant” and functionsat times to describe the making of a covenant. The oath emphasizesthe liability and obligation associated in the relationship (Deut.29:19). The oath can be taken by both parties (Gen. 26:28) or by justone party (Ezek. 17:13).
Theword “testimony” refers to the contents of the twotablets of stone (Exod. 31:18) received by Moses from God at MountSinai. The Ark of the Covenant is also identified by the phrase “arkof the testimony” (Exod. 26:34; 30:6; 31:7 KJV, ESV). Testimonyin the context of the covenant refers to the obligations placed uponthe nation in covenant with Yahweh.
Theterm “word” can be understood in connection with covenantcommunication. The conquest of the land (a covenant promise) isviewed as a performance of the word of God (Deut. 9:5 KJV). Thephrases “establish his covenant” (Deut. 8:18 KJV) and“perform his word” (Deut. 9:5 KJV) are parallel ideaswithin the overall concept of covenant. The sure “word of theLord” to David in 2 Sam. 7:4 can be contrasted withworthless words of the nation used in making a covenant with God(Hos. 10:4).
Torahis a Hebrew term related to covenant. The terms berit and torah arefound in parallel structure in Ps. 78:10. The binding arrangementbetween God and his people is ultimately based upon and regulated bythe instructions of his word. The phrase “Book of the Law”(2 Kings 22:8) has the same covenant implications as the phrase“tablets of the Testimony” (Exod. 31:18 ESV, NASB). Godindicted the priesthood for misguiding the people and causing them tostumble at the law (Mal. 2:5–8) and ultimately to be misguidedin their relationship with him.
Khesedis another Hebrew term that is frequently used with relation to acovenant. Defined as “steadfast covenant loyalty,” it isalso understood as grace, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness. Khesed isthat characteristic of God which causes him to act consistently andfaithfully regarding self-imposed obligations in covenantrelationships despite the failure or success of the other party. Thekhesed of God will never cease (Lam. 3:19–21) because he keepscovenant and mercy (Deut. 7:9, 12). The loyalty of God to David isstated in 2 Sam. 7:14–15 and celebrated in Ps. 89:14, 24,28, 33–34, 49. In contrast, the people are indicted for theirlack of loyalty (Hos. 4:1).
Commonphrases. Themost common covenant-making phrase is “to cut a covenant.”Two possible practices lie behind this phrase. The first reflects apractice in Mesopotamia and Syria, cutting a covenant into a tabletwith a stylus. This may be somewhat similar to what is found in Exod.31:18, where it is said that the two tablets of stone were “inscribedby the finger of God.” The second practice behind this phraseis the cutting of sacrificial animals. The halving of animals waspart of the covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 15:9–18. In asituation of covenant violation God tells Israel that he will treatthem like the calf they cut in covenant making (Jer. 34:17–19).Covenant making is also described as establishing a covenant (2 Sam.23:5), giving a covenant (Gen. 9:12), and erecting a covenant (Exod.6:4).
Faithfulnessand loyalty to a covenant are expressed by several phrases. “Keepa covenant” exhorts the covenant parties to watch, guard,exercise faithfulness to the terms of the relationship established(Exod. 34:7). “Observe a covenant” implies thedemonstration of covenant fidelity in observing and doing (Gen.17:9–10; Exod. 19:5; NIV: “keep my covenant”). Godis obviously faithful in observing the covenant (Deut. 7:9–12).“Remember a covenant” conveys more than just a mentalexercise, especially when God is the subject of the verbal action ofremembering. When God remembers a covenant, he acts with resolve andintervention (Gen. 8:1; 19:29; 30:22; Exod. 2:24).
Covenantinfidelity is expressed by the phrases “break the covenant”(Lev. 26:14–16; Jer. 11:10; 31:32; 33:20–21), “notfaithful” (Ps. 78:37), “violate the covenant”(Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; 23:16), and “forsake the covenant”(Jer. 22:9; cf. Deut. 29:25; 1 Kings 19:10, 14).
TheCovenant Genre
Wenow turn to the form, content, and function of a covenant, or thecovenant genre. There is evidence of a common treaty form used byancient Near Eastern peoples to govern relationships between nationsand tribes. This evidence dates back to the third millennium BC andis derived from literary texts discovered in the ancient Near East.The most helpful contributions to this discussion come from theHittites (1400–1200 BC), the Assyrians (800–600 BC), andthe Babylonians. From this evidence, we are able to identify fourancient Near Eastern arrangements.
1. Theintertribal treaty was a legal arrangement between tribes and clansfor various purposes such as the purchase of land, trading, orpeaceful coexistence. The arrangements made in this format wereequally binding on both parties. A possible biblical example is thearrangement between Abraham and Abimelek in Gen. 21:22–34 orthe arrangement between Abimelek and Isaac in Gen. 26:28.
2.The parity treaty was an arrangement made between kings and princeswho were equal in each other’s eyes. This arrangement involvedmutual participation, as illustrated in the economic relationshipestablished between King Solomon and King Hiram of Tyre in 1 Kings5:1–12.
3.The suzerainty treaty was established between two parties, oneinferior and one superior. The distinctive emphasis of the treaty wason the superior party, the suzerain. In this arrangement the suzerainagrees to make certain provisions for the vassal. He agrees to defendthe vassal in the case of attack, along with permitting the existenceof the vassal nation. In addition, the suzerain has the right to taketribute from the vassal at any time. The vassal, for his part, agreesto a position of servanthood but not slavery. Vassals honor thesuzerain with tribute and material goods.
Thereare six basic parts to the format of this treaty. Many scholarsbelieve that the suzerainty treaty form has influenced the structureof the book of Deuteronomy.
(a) Thetreaty begins with the preamble that identifies the treaty’sauthor/originator (cf. Deut. 1:1–6a; 5:6a, 23–27).
(b) Thesecond part is the prologue, which contains a review of the pastrelationship between the vassal and the suzerain constructed in an“I-Thou” format (cf. Deut. 1:6b–3:29; 2:7;4:32–38). The purpose of this section is to review the previousacts of benevolence demonstrated by the suzerain toward the vassal.The faithfulness of the suzerain to the vassal would perhaps instillsome measure of confidence for entrance into this relationship. InHittite treaties there was often a grace ethic ideology thatcharacterized the prologue and served as a basis of appeal forobedience. The Hittites demonstrated a measure of appreciation forconquered vassals and treated them with dignity by allowing themlimited sovereignty. The Assyrians operated with a power ethic thatmotivated obedience by threatening dismemberment, torture, and evendeath. Yahweh appealed to Israel on the basis of the grace ofredemption (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15) and theprivilege of revelation (Deut. 4:12; cf. Rom. 3:2).
(c) Thestipulations are the third part of the treaty form. These are theexpectations of the suzerain for the vassal (cf. Deut. 4:1–23;6:4–7:2; 10:12–22; 12–26). The stipulations callfor the vassal to be loyal in war, to loyally return politicalrefugees, and to not murmur against the suzerain and his kingdom. Theheart of the stipulation in Deuteronomy is the appeal to “lovethe Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and withall your strength” (6:5), one of the most important verses ofthe OT.
(d) Thedeposit and public reading of the treaty is the next division. Thissection instructs the vassal to place the treaty in his sanctuary anddirects the vassal to publicly read the document from one to fourtimes per year (cf. Deut. 10:1–5; 31:9–13). A regularreading was designed to keep the stipulations before the vassal inorder to nurture respect for the suzerain.
(e) Inthe next part, a list of witnesses, usually gods, are called upon toobserve the covenant and to punish any breach of it (cf. Deut.30:19–20).
(f) Thefinal part of the treaty is a section of blessing and curse. Thissection contains a list of potential rewards for faithfulness andterrifying possibilities of retribution for covenant violations (cf.Deut. 28–29).
4.The royal grant treaty, used in both biblical and secular literature,is somewhat similar to the suzerainty treaty. The distinctivedifference is that the obligation of the grant is not on the vassalbut rather on the suzerain to protect the rights of the vassal. Inthis format the curse is directed against any third party that wouldoppose the vassal or against the suzerain who would act unfaithfullyagainst the vassal.
Covenantsin the Bible
Typesof covenants. Thematerial on covenant form, content, and structure comes into playwhen attempts are made to interpret the major covenants recorded inthe Bible (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new). Initialdiscussions usually revolve around whether these covenants areconditional or unconditional. Although there is merit to thisdiscussion, covenants should also be understood in light of whichparty is bearing the treaty obligation. As described above, theobligation of the suzerainty treaty is upon the vassal to fulfill theexpectations of the suzerain. In the grant treaty the obligation isplaced upon the suzerain to fulfill the treaty promises made to thevassal. There is a sense of conditionality and unconditionality inboth treaty forms.
Onthis basis, the Mosaic covenant is most fittingly understood in lightof the suzerainty treaty. This covenant made at Mount Sinaiestablished Israel as a covenant nation. Yahweh never intended tocreate a relationship with Israel on the basis of this covenant.Rather, he chose this covenant form as the means to regulate hisrelationship with Israel, the nation that he had just graciouslyredeemed. The Mosaic covenant addressed every aspect of Israelitelife. so that the prophetic charges against the nation’stransgressions were considered covenant violations.
TheAbrahamic and Davidic covenants are more like a grant. In theAbrahamic covenant Yahweh is obligating himself to gift Israel withland, seed, and blessing (Gen. 12–17). The halving of animalsin Gen. 15:9–20 resembles a covenant-cutting ceremony in whichYahweh, in the form of a smoking firepot, walks between the animals,obligating himself to the terms of the covenant. In the Davidiccovenant (2 Sam. 7; Ps. 89), Yahweh obligates himself to provideDavid and his descendants a king and a kingdom. The new covenant isfirst referenced by Moses in Deut. 30:6 and then developed moreextensively in Jer. 31:31–33 and Ezek. 36. Scholars debate thenature of this covenant and the promises associated with it. Somedefine it as a grant and speak of it in unconditional terms, whileothers view it as an administrative covenant. The new covenantanticipates a change in the heart of the vassal that ultimatelyfacilitates keeping of the law. The OT Scriptures see this happeningin connection with Israel’s occupation of the land at a futuretime.
Covenantleadership positions. Inaddition to the very specific covenant arrangements made by God inthe OT defining and regulating the life and future of Israel, Godestablished three key covenant leadership positions for the nation:prophet, priest, and king (Deut. 17–18). Their connection withthe covenant is evident from the fact that their origin and functionare detailed in the covenant book of Deuteronomy.
Godprovided a prophet (Deut. 18:9–22) for the nation so that itwould not learn the abominations of the Canaanites and surroundingnations. God desired spiritual integrity for his people andestablished the prophet as his mouthpiece to speak what he commanded(Deut. 18:18–20). The prophet was to be an Israelite who fit aMoses-like pattern (Deut. 18:18–19). The writing and nonwritingprophets often called Israel back to covenant fidelity. They did thisby using legal terminology to illustrate covenant violations, thusestablishing covenant lawsuits against them. Isaiah 1 is a case madeby God against the nation. In this lawsuit God functions as judge,jury, and lawyer.
Thepriest (Deut. 17:8–13; 18:1–8; 33:8–11) had athreefold function within the covenant community. He was a mediatorof people before God and of God before people. This particularfunction of the priesthood was broad and encompassed much of itswork. The priest was a teacher who sought from the Torah resolutionto disagreements between parties (cf. Jer. 18:18). It is also worthnoting that the teaching of the priest preceded sacrifice. Finally,he was a minister of sacrifice. The priest led Israel in worship andsacrifice, giving instruction concerning what was clean and unclean(Lev. 13–15).
Theking was also a provision of the covenant (Deut. 17). Kingship wasnot a divine accommodation to the desire of Israel (1 Sam. 8)but rather a part of the overall covenant plan of God revealed toAbraham (Gen. 17:16). The promise of kingship was reiterated in Gen.35:11; 49:10. The duty of the king involved administration of thekingdom on the basis of the word of God (Deut. 17:18–20; cf.Prov. 29:4, 14).
Covenantin the Old Testament.Covenant is a dominant theme that gives cohesiveness to the structureof the OT and distinguishes the history of Israel. The phrase“covenant history” can be used to describe the biblicalliterature that recounts the events and episodes of Israelite life.It is a macrogenre that characterizes the historical narratives ofthe OT. Although this large literary corpus of historical narrativeshares a covenant perspective, the individual books within thenarrative corpus are noted for the attention they give to variousaspects of the covenant relationship. For example, Gen. 12–50develops the covenant promises of seed and blessing through a numberof subgenres such as genealogies and family stories. Joshua, on theother hand, engages several military subgenres to recount the tensionbetween the promise of land occupation and the responsibility ofIsrael to occupy the land. Covenant history is a realisticpresentation of the tensions associated with the covenantrelationship between Yahweh and the nation of Israel.
Finally,the psalms have a direct covenant connection emphasizing covenantworship. Psalm 119 (esp. vv. 57–64) is filled with covenantterms that relate to God’s word (testimonies, laws, oath,judgments). Marching to the place of worship designated by thecovenant is reflected in the Psalms of Ascent.
Covenantin the New Testament. Althoughthe covenant theme is less pervasive in the NT, its christologicalsignificance is profound. The NT highlights the significant messianicrole of Christ in relation to the covenants. Paul references the newcovenant in both books of Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor.3:6). Each celebration of the Lord’s Supper reminds us that theshed blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant. The newcovenant is cut in connection with or on the basis of his death,burial, and resurrection (1 Cor. 11:25). The writer of the bookof Hebrews gives detailed attention to how the new covenant functionsin contrast to the old Mosaic covenant. The writer explains thatJesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (7:22; 8:6–7).Finally, Paul indicates that we are now considered ministers of thenew covenant ministry (2 Cor. 3:6).
Showing
1
to
50
of109
results
1. POTTER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Jeremiah 18:4 - "And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do."
Romans 9:21 - "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lamp one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?"
The exact origin of pottery is not known, although its use is traced to Neolithic times, and probably discovered accidentally that clay could be shaped by hand and then that it could be hardened by the sun. Later, crude vessels were conceived and formed, and ceramics, one of the oldest of the arts, had its start. The study of pottery has yielded more knowledge of the history of the human race than has that of any other of the arts.
The story of pottery touches on all ages and all lands. The potter’s wheel, one of man’s earliest mechanical inventions, was highly regarded by ancient peoples. Its invention was claimed by both the Chinese and the Egyptians.
The potter’s work involved making clay utensils for the average family as well as elegant ware for the wealthy. His was a necessary occupation, because the fragile clay pots were easily broken and had to be replaced frequently.
Potter’s clay, which contained fine sand, animal and vegetable matter, and gravel, was washed and purified in a series of vats on descending levels. After the lowest vat’s contents were strained through cloth, it was spread out on a hill for "weathering." Next, it was made plastic by treading on it with the feet and mixing it with water. The clay was next tossed up into the air to drive out air bubbles. The potter would then knead the clay for many hours. Finally, the clay was "thrown" onto the potter’s wheel to be shaped.
The potter shaped his clay into its desired form while the wheel revolved counter-clockwise. By jabbing his forearm into the wet clay, the potter could hollow out his object. Upon finishing, the article was then returned to the wheel for removal of excess clay, for smoothing, or for strengthening its bottom so that it would not leak. The piece was then kiln-dried.
Decorations, including zig-zag patterns, half-moons, keys, scrolls, pictures of men and women, animal scenes, and circles were added to even inexpensive cooking vessels. Unlike the Egyptians, Palestinian potters did not coat their work with liquid glass (glaze). Instead, they burnished the piece with shells, pebbles, or a tool.
The pottery making centers were at the edge of town, near an open field, where vessels could be dried. And, in many cities, the potter’s field became the burial ground.
The objects which they made included jars, cooking pots, buttons, bottles, toys, writing material, statuettes, and ceramic tile, many of which the pottery maker or ceramics maker of today also manufactures, in much the same way.
2. Make Me Clean!
Illustration
King Duncan
Pastor Thomas Pinckney says that one summer his boys discovered large clay deposits in the swimming hole he and they had built in the Green River. The boys discovered that this clay made great body paint! They would get all wet, then smear clay over their entire body, head to foot.
One day he noticed the two boys covered with clay, with a gleam in their eyes, whispering among themselves. Then they turned toward their mother and declared, “We love you, Mommy!” and ran toward her covered with mud with the intention of giving her a big hug. She naturally ran in the opposite direction. Who wants to be hugged by two boys covered with yucky clay?
But Mothers don’t always run from dirty children, even though they may get covered with filth themselves, do they? asks Pinckney. Imagine this, he says: “You hear the distressed cry of your child and look up: Your precious daughter has fallen face first in the mud, and now runs toward you, tears streaming through the dirt. Here she comes, with mud on her clothes, her face, in her hair, her eyes, her ears, her mouth. What do you mothers do? Do you say, ‘Don’t come near!’ Do you say, ‘You made your mess now clean it up!’ To an older, responsible child, you might say that. But not to one who can’t clean herself. You take her in your arms, soiling your own clothes; you comfort her, then gently clean all the sand and dirt and refuse from her eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth. You love her, clean her, and comfort her. That child has come to you, in effect saying through her tears: ‘I am a mess. I can’t clean myself. If you are willing,you can make me clean.’ And you are willing.”
That is what God has done for us in Christ Jesus. Baptism doesn’t make that possible for us. Baptism is an acknowledgement that it has already been done in our behalf. We belong to God. Baptism is our response of faith. It shows where our allegiance lies. It acknowledges that we are seeking to live a new life in Christ.
3. The Deeper Magic - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
It might surprise you to learn that I didnot disapprove of the Harry Potter phenomenon, when it first came out. I do not think that Christians who read these books or watch the movie are in any way practicing witchcraft. The books are first and foremost literature. There is, in the movie and book, a point being made that has nothing to do with witchcraft. I will get to this point in a moment. But first let me throw in a word of caution. If anyone misses the point of the books and rushes headlong into witchcraft or Wicca, or any version of the occults, thinking that there is some power to be had, they have been sorely mislead. They are on a fool's errand and have distorted the author's intent.
Now I know that there are Christian groups around the nation and churches right here in our town that are strongly protesting Harry Potter. I don't dispute that there are concerns. But I was surprised a few weeks ago when I listened to Billy Graham's daughter endorse the series so long as, she qualified, a parent read the books along with their children and used them as an opportunity to teach the children how our Christian beliefs differ from witchcraft. She recognized the literary value of the books but more than that she saw an opportunity for parents and children to discuss a set of values that might otherwise never have been discussed. This is wise council.
Let me tell you the reason I do not disapprove of Harry Potter. Like most of you I have spent a great deal of my life reading. Pastors perhaps read more than most. In seminary we read everything: ancient literature, church Fathers, classical literature, and theological works. Whatever I read, whether it is fiction or non-fiction, the single common element that makes the literature good is this: Does it have a human touch? In the end, does it witness to the best in us and to the worst in us? And, does it tell us through the characters lives how to find our way back home? This is my acid test. And, Harry Potter passes it.
This is one of the main reasons the story of the life of our Lord has had such a profound impact upon the world. It has a human touch. It witnesses to the best and worst in us. And, it ultimately is the story of the One who provides for us the way back home. Let's look at the story.
1. First, it witnesses to the best in us.
2. Second, it witnesses to the worst in us.
3. Finally, it witnesses to the forgiveness that saves us all.
The third point will deal with C.S. Lewis' crucifixion motif (the Deeper Magic) in "The Lion, The Witch, and Wardrobe" comparing and contrasting it with Harry Potter.
4. Little Bit of Haggin
Illustration
Max Lucado
Abraham Lincoln once listened to the pleas of the mother of a soldier who'd been sentenced to hang for treason. She begged the President to grant a pardon. Lincoln agreed. Yet, he's reported to have left the lady with the following words: "Still, I wish we could teach him a lesson. I wish we could give him just a little bit of hangin'."
5. God’s Rescue Comes in a Quiet Way
Illustration
Kenneth W. Collins
We are not told that Jesus commanded the wind and the waves with masterful gestures or a great, loud voice. For all we know from the text, he just quietly told them to behave themselves. This makes sense, because people who truly have power don't need to flaunt it. God may not answer our request with the same urgency and fireworks, but that does not mean that His answer doesn't come. Don't expect a battalion of angels to vindicate you! Don't expect the heavens to open up and a deep voice to exonerate you! God's rescue comes in a quiet way; in fact those of us who are hard to teach often look back on God's rescues and decide that we were saved by something else instead: coincidence, kindness, or our own ability. Don't make that mistake so God won't have to repeat the lesson. I suppose the disciples could have shrugged the whole thing off a few weeks later as a coincidence, but they learned to have faith. Will you learn?
6. A Mother's Influence
Illustration
Staff
I took a piece of plastic clay
And idly fashioned it one day;
And as my fingers pressed it still
It moved and yielded at my will.
I came again when days were past,
The form I gave it still it bore,
And as my fingers pressed it still,
I could change that form no more.
I took a piece of living clay,
And gently formed it day by day,
And molded with my power and art,
A young child's soft and yielding heart.
I came again when days were gone;
It was a man I looked upon,
He still that early impress bore,
And I could change it never more.
7. Be a Cheerful Giver
Illustration
A mother wanted to teach her daughter a moral lesson. She gave the little girl a quarter and a dollar for church."Put whichever one you want in the collection plate and keep the other for yourself," she told the girl. When they were coming out of church, the mother asked her daughter which amount she had given.
"Well," said the little girl, "I was going to give the dollar, but just before the collection the man in the pulpit said that we should all be cheerful givers. I knew I'd be a lot more cheerful if I gave the quarter, so I did."
8. Parable of Grading the Teacher
Illustration
Staff
"Bill, you will never get into college, if you settle for C's on your report card."
"Dad, I work hard, but that new teacher just can't explain things right. He's only a "C" teacher. Everyone in the class says he doesn't know how to teach."
"What seems to be wrong with his teaching?" asked the father.
"He doesn't have time for questions, he talks about too many other things than the lesson and he can't seem to explain the subject very well. Maybe he will learn after a few years, but it will be too late for us."
Truly, giving grades is a real problem to teachers and many students do acquire knowledge more easily than others. But the skill of teaching depends on both the teacher and the students communicating with each other freely in the exchange of knowledge.
Students, who are afraid to ask questions or who feel intimidated by severity, deter the process. Teachers, who lack self-confidence, often try to cover their failures with an unnecessary severity in grades.
Good teachers win the love and respect of the students by clear illustrations, that all may understand. Through a willingness to accept criticism, the teacher proves democracy and eases the admission of ignorance on the part of the student in regards to any particular lesson.
The real concern of both the student and the teacher to gain knowledge is a necessary blessing in the art of education. Love is at work in both discipline and direction that goes with factual knowledge in the happy classroom Good teachers are the treasures of our society and must win and receive respect by their own good examples."
9. A Theological Curveball
Illustration
Larry R. Kalajainen
A certain minister has made it a policy for many years to refer "six-year-old theology questions" to his wife. Since she has taught very young children for many years, he says, she has a much better grasp than he does of how to address the questions which little kids ask.
A first-grader brought a drawing of a skeleton into class where she teaches English as a second language. The title across the top of the drawing read "Inside of Me." It was designed to teach children that everyone has a skeleton inside of them. He unfolded it proudly and showed it to the class. One little girl from India was astounded at the thought that she and others had this scary-looking skeleton inside them, and so she pressed the issue a bit farther. "Even you got one of these inside you, Mrs. K?" The teacher replied, "Yes, I have one, too."
The next question was the theological one. "Even God got one inside him?" Now in a class made up of children from many different countries, cultures, and religious backgrounds (most of them not Christians), you can imagine that this question had the potential for major theological debate. I doubt if I'd have had the presence of mind to give the answer the teacher did; but, as usual, her expertise in six-year-old theology saved the day. "If God needs a skeleton, I'm sure he has one," she replied. "God has everything he needs." This apparently satisfied the theological curiosity of the class, and they got on with the lesson.
Asking questions is an essential part of learning. If we don't know something, we look for someone who does and we ask. The only dumb question is the one you don't ask. We learn by asking questions about what we don't know.
10. First Lesson in Prayer
Illustration
A little boy was sitting next to a grizzled holy man seated beside the Ganghes River. "Will you teach me to pray?" the boy asked. "Are you sure that you want to learn?" the holy man asked? "Yes, of course." With that the holy man grabbed the boy's neck and plunged his head into the water. He held them there while the boy kicked and screamed and tried to get away. Finally, after an interminable period the holy man let the boy out of the water. "What was that?" the boy asked.
"That was your first lesson in prayer. When you long for God the way that you longed to breathe, then you will be able to pray."
11. Carry Someone with You
Illustration
King Duncan
There was a tribe of Indians who lived a long time ago in the state of Mississippi. They lived next to a very swift and dangerous river. The current was so strong that if somebody happened to fall in or stumbled into it they could be swept away downstream.
One day the tribe was attacked by a hostile group of settlers. They found themselves with their backs against the river. They were greatly outnumbered and their only chance for escape was to cross the rushing river. They huddled together and those who were strong picked up the weak and put them on their shoulders; the little children, the sick, the old and the infirm, those who were ill or wounded were carried on the backs of those who were strongest. They waded out into the river, and to their surprise they discovered that the weight on their shoulders carrying the least and the lowest helped them to keep their footing and to make it safely across the river.
Jesus is trying to teach the disciples an object lesson about greatness, about servanthood, about leadership. He is saying to them and to us, "Have you lost the childlike joy and love and faith that once were yours?" He is also saying to them and to us, "If you want to walk on secure ground in this world it helps to carry someone with you."
12. The Dollars Are in the Way
Illustration
King Duncan
Henry Ford once asked an associate about his life goals. The man replied that his goal was to make a million dollars. A few days later Ford gave the man a pair of glasses made out of two silver dollars. He told the man to put them on and asked what he could see. "Nothing," the man said. "The dollars are in the way." Ford told him that he wanted to teach him a lesson: If his only goal was dollars, he would miss a host of greater opportunities. He should invest himself in serving others, not simply in making money.
That's a great secret of life that far too few people discover. Money is important. No question about that. But money is only a means by which we reach higher goals. Service to others. Obedience to God. God comes to the rich man and says, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?" The answer was clear. The rich man had put his trust in things. Now he was leaving these things behind.
13. Goodness and Mercy Will Win
Illustration
Erskine White
As some of you know, Fiorello LaGuardia was mayor of New York during the Depression, and he was quite a character. He would ride the city fire trucks, take entire orphanages to baseball games and whenever the city newspapers went on strike, he would get on the radio and read the Sunday "funnies" to the children.
At any rate, one bitter cold winter's night in 1935, Mayor LaGuardia turned up in a night court that served the poorest ward in the city, dismissed the judge for the evening and took over the bench himself. After he heard a few cases, a tattered old woman was brought before him, accused of stealing a loaf of bread.
She told LaGuardia that her daughter's husband had deserted her, her daughter was sick and her grandchildren were starving. But the shopkeeper, from whom the bread was stolen, insisted on pressing charges. "My store is in a very bad neighborhood, your honor," he said. "She's got to be punished in order to teach other people a lesson."
The mayor sighed. He turned to the old woman and said, "I've got to punish you," he said. "The law makes no exception - ten dollars or ten days in jail."
But even as he spoke, LaGuardia was reaching into his pocket and pulling out a ten dollar bill. "Here is the woman's fine," he said, "and furthermore, I'm going to fine everyone in this court room fifty cents for living in a city where a person has to steal bread so that her grandchildren can eat. Mr. Baliff, collect the fines and give them to the defendant."
The following day, the New York Times reported that $47.50 was turned over to the bewildered old woman. It was given by the red-faced store owner, some seventy petty criminals, people with traffic violations and city policemen on duty that night in the chambers- and they all gave their mayor a standing ovation as they handed over their money.
That's how it will be with God's world. Just when it seems that all hope is lost, and goodness and mercy shall never win, the Great Judge will come to set things right, deciding for the hungry and the meek of the earth. Yes, there is also an Advent promise for the nations of the world in perplexity and distress: "Look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."
14. The Language of God
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
There was a mother mouse who decided to teach her children about the world. So she gathered all of her little mice and set out for a walk. They walked down the hall and turned to the right. Then they went down the hall and took another right. And suddenly they found themselves in front of the family cat dozing in the sunlight. The mother mouse was scared. But she didn't want to give in to her fright. So she signaled to the children to be very quiet and to follow as she began to tip toe quietly and slowly past the sleeping cat. Just as she was about to get past the cat, the cat's eyes popped open and raised its paw.
The little mice were petrified. What would their mother do? Well, just as the cat's paw started to come down, that mother mouse looked the cat right in the eye and started barking like a dog. And do you know what? The cat was so startled and frightened that it jumped up and ran away! The mother mouse, wiped her brow, shook a little and then turned to her little mice and said, "Children, I hope you learned a valuable lesson. Sometimes it's good to know a second language!"
It's the same way with us. It's good to know a second language. Salt and light are the language of God; the language of Grace; the language of hope and love. And when this language is translated into action it becomes the most beautiful language ever spoken. We're called to be salt and light and to speak the language of God as we live our faith. We're called to live the Word.
15. Just a Person across the Way
Illustration
Brett Blair
Edgar Guest, a renowned American poet at the turn of the century, tells of a neighbor by the name of Jim Potter. Mr. Potter ran the drug store in the small town where Edgar Guest lived. Guest recalled that daily he would pass his neighbor and how they would smile and exchange greetings. But it was a mere casual relationship.
Then came that tragic night in the life of Edgar Guest when his first born child died. He felt lonely and defeated. These were grim days for him and he was overcome with grief. Several days later Guest had reason to go to the drug store run by his neighbor, and when he entered Jim Potter motioned for him to come behind the counter. "Eddie," he said, "I really can't express to you the great sympathy that I have for you at this time. All I can say is that I am terribly sorry, and if you need for me to do anything, you can count on me."
Many years later Edgar Guest wrote of that encounter in one of his books. This is how he worded it: "Just a person across the way a passing acquaintance. Jim Potter may have long since forgotten that moment when he extended his hand to me in sympathy, but I shall never forget it never in all my life. To me it stands out like the silhouette of a lonely tree against a crimson sunset."
[Suggestion for personal application ofthis story]
I have wondered how it is that I want people to remember me when I come to end of my life's journey.
[name some personal accomplishments each followed by]
But I really don't care if someone remembers me for that. I really don't.
I do hope that people are able to say of me at the end of my life's pilgrimage: When we were sick he came to us; when we needed help, he was there; when I was down, he lifted me up. In short, I hope that my ministry is remembered for simple acts of kindness. For if that is the case, then my life would have been worth it and I might have come close to fulfilling the greatest commandment in life: Love God and love your neighbor.
16. Door to Door
Illustration
Two young missionaries were going door to door. They knocked on the door of one woman who was not at all happy to see them. The woman told them in no uncertain terms that she did not want to hear their message and slammed the door in their faces. To her surprise, however, the door did not close and, in fact, almost magically bounced back open.
She tried again, really putting her back into it and slammed the door again with the same amazing result - the door bounced back again.
Convinced that one of the young religious zealots was sticking his foot in the door, she reared back to give it a third slam. She felt this would really teach them a lesson. But before she could act, one of them stopped her and politely said, "Ma'am, before you do that again, you really should move your cat."
17. Active Forgiveness
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
A small boy at a summer camp received a large package of cookies in the mail from his mother. He ate a few, then placed the remainder under his bed. The next day, after lunch, he went to his tent to get a cookie. The box was gone.
That afternoon a camp counselor, who had been told of the theft, saw another boy sitting behind a tree eating the stolen cookies. He said to himself, “That young man must be taught not to steal."
He returned to the group and sought out the boy whose cookies had been stolen. He said, "Billy, I know who stole your cookies. Will you help me teach him a lesson?" The puzzled boy replied, "Well, yes, but aren't you going to punish him?"
The counselor explained, "No, that would only make him resent and hate you. No, I want you to call your mother and ask her to send you another box of cookies."
The boy did as the counselor asked and a few days later received another box of cookies in the mail.
The counselor said, "Now, the boy who stole your cookies is down by the lake. Go down there and share your cookies with him."
The boy protested, "But he's the thief."
"I know. But try it, see what happens."
Half an hour later the camp counselor saw the two come up the hill, arm and arm. The boy who had stolen the cookies was earnestly trying to get the other to accept his jackknife in payment for the stolen cookies, and the victim was just as earnestly refusing the gift from his new friend, saying that a few old cookies weren't that important anyway.
18. In Success is the Seed of Failure
Illustration
J. Ellsworth Kalas
Success ought to breed success, but it doesn't always work that way. In fact, success has no greater danger than itself. When Roy Tarpley entered the National Basketball Association, it was assumed that Dallas could build a team around him. Experts say he would have made the American "dream team" for the Barcelona Olympics if he had fulfilled his obvious talent. Instead, when he should have been at the top of his game, he was not even in the NBA. "My problem, "Tarpley said, "was with success. Every time I was successful, I had to go out and party" (The Plain Deale,March 24, 1993).
The problem with success is success. This reminds us again of the importance of godly character. Success has within it the seed of failure and even of self-destruction. The more success a person achieves—including the most honorable and praiseworthy success—the more one needs the correction of the Holy Spirit. I'm very sure God wants us to succeed. It is better that we become saints than corrupters, better that we use God's generous gifts rather than letting them lie idle or perverting them to unworthy purposes. God, the ultimate Source of success, would like for us to succeed and to learn from each success. But that calls for sensitive students, who never feel that they are above correction and reproof. In other words, the greatest lesson success can teach us is the humility that makes us keep on learning.
19. Daily Reminders
Illustration
Charles White
Your child's journey from 4 to 14 is very short. Christian parents need to put God into each day during this impressionable time. As a father of five foster children and a preschool teacher for 10 years, I'm convinced that the following practices instilled early can teach children to hold onto God during the difficult adolescent period:
- Hang a picture of Christ in each child's bedroom. Children are often quicker to respond to pictures than to words.
- Teach your child how to pray. By the time a child is 5, he should be able to speak one-sentence prayers with a parent. By the time he's 6, he should be looking for answers to his prayers. But avoid correcting a child's prayers. They are between him and God.
- Bless your child each morning. If you want to see sudden dramatic improvement in your family and young children, try this. I admit it sounds formal, but it's been a miracle for many. Place one hand on the shoulder or head and repeat a blessing from Scripture, such as one of the following: "May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face to shine upon you and give you peace" (Num. 6:24-26) or "May God strengthen you with power through His spirit in your inner being so that Christ may dwell in your heart through faith" (Eph. 3:16). You can also choose your own words. The spirit of the blessing impresses even the youngest children. Giving a blessing can also renew a parent's heart.
- Take short walks. Get outside to God's world as much as possible. You can identify trees, capture bugs and look at scenery. Let creation declare the glory of God.
- Purchase Scripture cards from your Christian bookstore and leave them on the kitchen table. Reading from God's Word as part of the mealtime prayer is a great way to remind the family of God's presence.
- Display your child's Sunday school lesson. Letting a youngster's efforts die a painful death on the car floor can leave hurt feelings.
Of course, none of these efforts is a guarantee that your daughter or son will know God. But incorporating some of these ideas will be a daily reminder of His presence and love.
20. Jesus, Out of Doors
Illustration
J. Ellsworth Kalas
Jesus lived with nature, and he taught from it. If I want an object lesson, I have to carry it into the pulpit or trust that you and I can blend our imaginations to envision a scene. Jesus had his illustrations at first hand; the people could often reach out and touch them. "Consider the lilies of the field," Jesus said, and the people looked at a hillside just to their right. "A certain man went out to sow seed," Jesus said, and every person in the crowd knew what he was talking about, because they had either sown seed or had seen another do it. "There was a shepherd who lost a sheep": there wasn't a person there but whose acquaintance included someone who had gone searching for such a poor, lost beast.
But the marvel with Jesus is that he took such common elements and touched them with eternity. The people who heard him teach knew all about lilies, farming, and sheep, but now they saw those things as messengers of God's work in the world. G.K. Chesterton said it well:
There was a man who dwelt in the east centuries ago.
And now I cannot look at a sheep or sparrow,
A lily or a cornfield, a raven or a sunset,
A vineyard or a mountain, without thinking of Him.
When Chesterton wrote those words, he wasn't thinking of a tour in the Holy Land, but simply of what the teachings of Jesus had done to his entire outlook on life. Jesus gives a sacredness to the common elements of life.
21. You'll Pay for the Play
Illustration
Staff
Once there was a man who was such a golf addict that he was neglecting his job. Frequently he would call in sick as an excuse to play.
One morning, after making his usual call to the office, an angel up above spotted him on the way to the golf course and decided to teach him a lesson. "If you play golf today, you will be punished," the angel whispered in his ear.
Thinking it was only his conscience, which he had successfully whipped in the past, the fellow just smiled. "No," he said, "I've been doing this for years. No one will ever know. I won't be punished."
The angel said no more. The fellow stepped up to the first tee, where he promptly whacked the ball 300 yards straight down the middle of the fairway. Since he had never driven the ball more than 200 yards, he couldn't believe it. Yet, there it was. His luck continued: long drives on every hole, perfect putting. By the ninth hole, he was six under par and was playing near-perfect golf. The fellow was walking on air. He wound up with an amazing 61, about 30 strokes under his usual game. Wait until he got back to the office and told them about this! But, suddenly, his face fell. He couldn't tell them. He could never tell anyone. The angel smiled.
Punishment doesn't have to be fire and brimstone for us to feel the pain. For every action, there is a consequence, sometimes a reward, sometimes a punishment.
22. Three Strikes?
Illustration
Johnny Dean
What do you do when the Word of God you encounter at church on Sunday morning is not comforting but confusing and even down right confrontational?
The lectionary text from the Gospel of Matthew certainly fits in that category, doesn't it? Well, at first glance it may not be all that confusing. Forgiveness is good, but there are limits. If someone sins against you, confront that person face to face, one on one, and try to clear the air. If reconciliation doesn't result from the one on one encounter, confront the person again in the presence of witnesses. If the situation still remains unresolved, tell it to the church - sic the elders on them! That'll teach them a lesson! But if THAT doesn't work then let the one who sinned against you "be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector." That seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Sounds a lot like "three strikes and you're out," as a matter of fact. Most of us would agree with that approach. If somebody does you wrong, they either ought to make it right or pay the price. Or, as one philosopher put it, "We should always forgive our enemies, but only after they have been publicly executed."
But, you see, there IS one problem with this "three strikes and you're out" approach. And it's a major problem. The problem is that this method of dealing with someone who has wronged you is totally, completely, 100% AGAINST everything else Jesus teaches about forgiveness. In fact, if you read the entire 18th chapter of Matthew's gospel instead of reading just these few selected verses, it would appear that "three strikes and you're out" flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus recorded elsewhere in that chapter.
23. Fine China
Illustration
The Irish Potato Famine (1846-1851) resulted in a 30 percent drop in the population of the west of Ireland. The prolonged suffering of the Irish peasantry had broken the survivors in body and spirit.
John Bloomfield, the owner of Castle Caldwell in County Fermanagh, was working on the recovery of his estate when he noticed that the exteriors of his tenant farmers' small cottages had a vivid white finish. He was informed that there was a clay deposit on his property of unusually fine quality. To generate revenue and provide employment on his estate, he built a pottery at the village of Belleek in 1857. The unusually fine clay yielded a porcelain china that was translucent with a glass-like finish. It was worked into traditional Irish designs and was an immediate success.
Today, Belleek's delicate strength and its iridescent pearlized glaze is enthusiastically purchased the world over. This multimillion-dollar industry arose from innovative thinking during some very anxious times.
24. SCULPTOR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Judges 3:26 - "Ehud escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the sculptored ‘stones, and escaped to Seirah.’ "
Sculpture was a very early form of art. When prehistoric man shaped sticks, stones, or clay into images that represented ideas, he was creating sculpture. The oldest known work of this kind dates from the end of the Old Stone Age, perhaps 20,000 years ago. Although wood may have been used, the examples that have survived through the centuries are in stone, ivory, bone, or clay.
The early sculptors combined remarkable visual observations with purposes of magic and religion. They probably believed that by carving animal images on a stone weapon they were giving it magical powers over that animal. The very early small female figures like the "Venus of Willendorf," carved in the round, were probably associated with agricultural and human fertility.
It was for this reason that sculpturing was not highly developed as an art among the Hebrews; the Second Commandment forbade the making of graven images. And, to further add insult to injury, the cursed fertility rites were involved. However, in more lax times, sculptors were often called upon to make idols.
However, because the Hebrews were not adept at this art, when sculpture was used, it was generally imported from Egypt, Pheonicia, Syria, or Mesopotamia. The ancient sculptor worked in clay, wax, plaster, or some other soft material which was hardened by baking, and, because of this hardness, many have survived.
I’m sure that we are all familiar with the masterpieces of sculpture which have come down to us through the ages. And, even today, we have many men and women who are geniuses in this art. Perhaps, in some instances, their works might not be commensurate with what we might judge to be "fine art" and we may not always understand the sculpture, but tastes and techniques change, and the sculptor will probably always remain as a very important member of the aesthetic scene.
25. BRICKMAKER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Exodus 5:7 - "You shall no longer give the people straw to make bricks, as heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves."
Exodus 5:16 - "No straw is given to your servants, yet they say to us; ‘Make bricks!’ "
We take bricks so much for granted in our modern world - we live in brick houses, we have brick patios and barbecue pits - that we seldom stop to think about them. In fact, I would seriously wonder if many of you would be really aware of the impact that is implicit in our text. The Pharaoh needed bricks, no doubt about that, with all the building projects he had going on. And, as slaves, the Hebrews had to make those bricks. But, suddenly, their supply of straw was cut off, and they couldn’t continue to make their bricks until they got more straw. Well, so what? What’s the big deal with straw?
Well, you see, straw was necessary in brick-making to keep the bricks from cracking. It is often thought that the hardship imposed on the Hebrews was the fact that they had to make the bricks without straw. Not at all! That could be done, and done successfully, but the Egyptians knew that the best bricks had straw in them, and so the real hardships lay in making the Hebrews find their own straw, without decreasing their quota of bricks.
The soil in the Bible lands is excellent for brick-making, being heavily clay impregnated. The bricks were made from this clay and water, were kneaded by treading them with the feet, and were then molded into oblong or square units. They were then either sun-dried or kiln-fired.
Quite often rulers had their insignia or initials or some other royal mark stamped into the bricks made in their own lands. Still today, it is not unusual for a farmer to be working in his fields and unearth an ancient brick marked with the sign of a pharaoh or of a Babylonian or Assyrian monarch.
Often, both the Egyptians and the Babylonians painted their bricks for decorative purposes. In the ruins of ancient Babylon has been found a wide street used for parades. The street was lined with walls carrying the images of sixty lions, thirty on each side. These lions were molded in clay bricks and then painted. Then they were oven-fired until they were hard and the paint was shiny. These glazed bricks are just as beautiful today and the colors are as bright and fresh as when Nebuchanezzer had them built over 2,000 years ago!
Brick-making today may be somewhat more prosaic than that. But when you appreciate the warmth of your home next winter, or have fun on your patio or cooking on your barbecue, think about the men who made those bricks for you. Their task is much easier than it was for the Hebrews sweating away in the brickyards of the Pharaoh.
26. Every Link of the Chain
Illustration
Keith Wagner
Idlers of a seacoast town watched the village smith day after day as he painstakingly wrought every link of a great chain he was forging. Behind his back they scoffed at such care being taken on such an ordinary thing as a chain. But the old craftsman worked on, ignoring them as if he had not heard them at all.
Eventually the chain was attached to a great anchor on the deck of an ocean vessel. For months it was never put to use. But one day the vessel was disabled by a breakdown in its steering apparatus while nearing the coast in a storm. Only a secure anchorage could prevent the vessel from being driven onto the rocky coast. Thus the fate of the ship and hundreds of passengers depended on the strength of that chain. No one knew of the care and skill that had been lavished on each link of that chain by an obscure smith who was only doing his best. The chain held, and the ship, its passengers and its crew were saved. A man from a "different world" had saved the day.
27. Set the Sail
Illustration
Warren Wiersbe
In 1853, when young Hudson Taylor was making his first voyage to China, his vessel was delayed near New Guinea because the winds had stopped. A rapid current was carrying the ship toward some reefs and the situation was becoming dangerous. Even the sailors using a longboat could not row the vessel out of the current. "We have done everything that can be done," said the captain to Taylor. But Taylor replied, "No, there is one thing we have not done yet." There were three other believers on the ship, and Taylor suggested that each retire to his own cabin and pray for a breeze. They did, and while he was at prayer, Taylor received confidence from God that the desperately needed wind would be sent. He went up on deck and suggested to the first officer, an unbeliever, that he let down the mainsail because a breeze was on its way. The man refused, but then they saw the corner of the sail begin to stir. The breeze had come! They let down the sail and in a short time were on their way!
AN ALTERNATE VERSION OF THIS STORY READS:
WhenHudsonTaylorwent toChina, he made the voyage on a sailing vessel. As it neared the channel between the southern Malay Peninsula and the island of Sumatra, the missionary heard an urgent knock on his stateroom door. He opened it, and there stood the captain of the ship. "Mr.Taylor," he said, "we have no wind. We are drifting toward an island where the people are heathen, and I fear they are cannibals." "What can I do?" askedTaylor. "I understand that you believe in God. I want you to pray for wind." "All right, Captain, I will, but you must set the sail." "Why that's ridiculous! There's not even the slightest breeze. Besides, the sailors will think I'm crazy." But finally, because ofTaylor's insistence, he agreed. Forty- five minutes later he returned and found the missionary still on his knees. "You can stop praying now," said the captain. "We've got more wind than we know what to do with!"
28. Feeding Sin
Illustration
King Duncan
In 1939, a coast guard vessel was cruising the Canadian Arctic when the men spotted a polar bear stranded on an ice floe. It was quite a novelty for the seamen, who threw the bear salami, peanut butter, and chocolate bars. Then they ran out of the food. Unfortunately, the polar bear hadn't run out of appetite, so he proceeded to board their vessel. The men on ship were terrified and opened the fire hoses on the bear. The polar bear loved it and raised his paws in the air to get the water under his armpits. We don't know how they did it, but eventually they forced the polar bear to return to his ice pad but not before teaching these seamen a horrifying lesson about feeding polar bears. No coast guard team has made thatmistake since.
Some people make the same mistake with sin that these sailors nearly made with the polar bear. They begin feeding it a little at a time without thinking through the consequences. "It says something about our times," writes Willard D. Ferrell, "that we rarely use the word SINFUL except to describe a really good dessert."
29. Pop Quiz: Advent
Illustration
Matthew T. Phillips
On Friday, a teacher told his class that he was going to give a surprise quiz the following week. One clever student—we'll call him Jamie—went home and thought about this pop quiz. He didn't know the subject very well, and was upset that he was going to miss his whole weekend to study. Jamie tried to figure out what day the quiz might be. First, he noticed that it couldn't be Friday, because if they got to Thursday and hadn't had the quiz yet, then everyone would know it was on Friday, and the teacher had said it would be a surprise. Friday is out. Well, now the text couldn't be on Thursday, because if they got to Wednesday with no quiz then everyone would know the quiz was on Thursday, because Friday was already ruled out. Thursday is out too. By the same logic, the test couldn't be on Wednesday or Tuesday. That left Monday as the only possible day, so a test given that day wouldn't be a surprise. Jamie figured out there was no way for the teacher to give a surprise pop quiz, so he spent his weekend playing with his friends, going to church and youth, and watching Monty Python movies. Anyone want to guess what happened? The teacher gave the quiz on Wednesday morning, Jamie was surprised, and he failed.
Did I tell this story just to embarrass Jamie? Certainly not. We read Jesus' prophecy about his second coming, especially the part about the present generation not passing away before all these things come to be, and we reason that since, as far as we understand, part of the prophecy was not true, we should just read this all as a nice set of symbols. That part about expecting the master to come home and keeping awake—we don't really need to do that, because he hasn't come back in the past two thousand years. The odds are pretty good he won't come back this year either. Well, the odds were pretty good Jamie wouldn't fail the pop quiz.
30. Keep Your Antenna Up
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
The Steamship California was only ten miles from the Titanic when it sunk, but its radio was turned off.The S.S. Carpathia was a far greater distance away, but its radio was turned on. The distress signal was heard, and this vessel arrived in time to save hundreds of lives. The California, however, only ten miles away, became aware of the tragic loss only after it was too late. I've seen that happen in families and among friends. We can be side-by-side with people and never be aware that they're torn up inside. Sometimes that's our fault, sometimes theirs. We can hide from each other. We can also be so preoccupied with our own selves that we are deaf and dumb to the signals for help loved ones are desperately sending. Keep your radio on and your antenna up. Someone you love may send a signal for help.
31. Specializing in Misdemeanors
Illustration
King Duncan
While working as a court-appointed attorney, Emory Potter was assigned a client who had been accused of criminal trespass. Mr. Potter probed his client with some general questions of background. He asked if he had any previous arrests or convictions. The man ashamedly said, "Yes, sir. I've got quite a few." The thorough attorney then asked, "Any felonies?" The man indignantly replied, "No sir! I specialize in misdemeanors!" That sounds like many of us. We know in our minds that we are sinners, but we specialize in misdemeanors not in felonies "in small sins not in large ones. In our minds, ours are excusable sins. We are like the Pharisee who thanked God he wasn't like the tax collector. His sins fell within a range of acceptability.
32. A Change in Posture
Illustration
King Duncan
In a cathedral in Copenhagen, Denmark, there is a magnificent statue of Jesus by the noted sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen. When Thorvaldsen first completed the sculpture he gazed upon the finished product with great satisfaction. It was a sculpture of Christ with face looking upward and arms extended upward. It was a statue of a majestic, conquering Christ.
Later that night, however, after the sculptor had left his fine new work in clay to dry and harden, something unexpected occurred. Sea mist seeped into the studio in the night. The clay did not harden as quickly as anticipated. The upraised arms and head of the sculpture began to drop. The majestic Christ with arms lifted up and head thrown back was transformed into a Christ with head bent forward and arms stretched downward as if in a pose of gentle invitation. At first Thorvaldsen was bitterly disappointed. As he studied the transformed sculpture, however, he came to see a dimension of Christ that had not been real to him before. It was the Christ who is a gently, merciful Savior. Thorvaldsen inscribed on the base of the completed statue, "Come Unto Me," and that picture of the Lamb of God in his mercy has inspired millions.
33. The Duty of Preparedness
Illustration
William Barclay
Jesus' story was not unfamiliar to his listeners. There was a story during Jesus' day that was told by the Rabbis and it went like this:
There was king who invited his guest to a feast, without telling them the exact date and time; but he did tell them that they must wash, and anoint, and clothe themselves that they might be ready when the summons came. The wise prepared themselves at once, and took their places waiting at the palace door, for they believed that in a palace a feast could be prepared so quickly that there would be no long warning. The foolish believed that it would take a long time to make the necessary preparations and that they would have plenty of time. So they went, the mason to his lime, the potter to his clay, the smith to his furnace, the fuller to his bleaching-ground, and they went on with their work. Then, suddenly, the summons to the feast came without any warning. The wise were ready to sit down, and the king rejoiced over his guest, and they ate and drank. But those who had not arrayed themselves in their wedding garments had to stand outside, sad and hungry. They could only look on at the joy they had lost.
This Rabbinic parable tells of the duty of preparedness for the summons of God, and garments stand for the preparation that must be made.
34. WRITING MATERIALS MAKER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Luke 1:63 - "And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, ‘His name is John.’ And they all marveled."
The knowledge of writing was possessed by the Hebrews at a very early period, and, during various periods of biblical time, different types of materials were written on. Among these materials were stone, metal, papyrus, wood, leather, and parchment. In fact, at one time, papyrus was in such great use, that our word "paper" has been derived from it.
Papyrus was prepared as a writing material by taking strong branches of the papyrus plant and stripping them of their bark. These fibers were then separated into thin strips placed side by side in two superimposed layers, the first in one direction, and the second crosswise. The sheets were then hammered to make them thinner and polished with pumice stone.
Wooden tablets were coated with stucco when used as writing material, or, sometimes, wax was used to coat them. Animal skins were tanned in a special way and then used as a medium for writing important documents. Clay tablets were common in most civilizations. And, as any archaeology student will tell you, potsherds or broken pieces of pottery were often made use of for short letters and business transactions. When they are found today, these "ostraca" are very valuable, and have given us many insights into ancient civilizations.
Ink was used at any early age; in fact, some of it was so durable that it has remained legible after 3,000 years! This ink was probably made of lampblack and gum, and mixed with water on a palette when needed.
There were also various kinds of pens to correspond with the medium on which the writing was to be done. Jeremiah speaks of an iron pen, but most were made of reeds with softened fibers at one end. The other end could be sharpened easily with a knife. And, if you made a mistake, there were even special kinds of sponges to wipe it out!
The manufacture of writing materials is still big business today, as witness all the stationery stores in our cities. And the makers of all the materials for communicating our messages to others through the medium of writing are carrying on an old tradition.
35. The Pushy Church
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
Just a few days before Christmas two ladies stood looking into a department store window at a large display of the manger scene with clay figures of the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the wise men, and the animals.
Disgustedly, one lady said, "Look at that, the church trying to horn in on Christmas!"
36. Blizzard Stories
Illustration
Steven Molin
Everybody loves to talk about the weather. Garrison Keillor loves to talk about "the winter of '65." He says that in describing the storms of that year, truth is only the starting point. The snow, the wind, the cold temperatures, yup, it was a miserable year, 1965. Keillor said that one night, it snowed so hard that he had to drive with his car door open so that he could follow the tracks in the snow; and he drove two miles before he realized that the track he was following was made by his own front tire.
Here's Another: In November of 1940, the Mother of All Blizzards struck Minnesota with a vengeance. That autumn day started out balmy enough, but in the early afternoon, the temperature plummeted and the blizzard roared. The Twin Cities got 17 inches of snow; 27 inches in St. Cloud. Farmers were caught unprepared in their fields, and hunters were stranded in their duck blinds. In all, 49 people died in Minnesota, while 59 sailors died on Lake Superior. And everyone who survived The Armistice Day Blizzard will tell you the same thing; that the storm came out of nowhere.
It truth, most storms do. Even in an age with Doppler radar and SkyMax 5 and trained meteorologists, storms are not always predictable. When they arrive unexpectedly, they can wreak havoc in our lives. And yet, the greatest storms in life have nothing to do with low pressure systems or cold fronts. The greatest storms come through the sudden twists and turns of our own lives. One day you go to the doctor's office for a routine exam and the next day your life is turned upside down by the results. Or your marriage is humming along just smoothly until one day your spouse tells you they want a divorce. Or you struggle to keep your head just above water financially, and then the boss announces a downsizing plan. Or a child gets sick, or a parent dies, or there is a fire, or there is a family fight. Suddenly, a storm hits you with a vengeance, and your life takes a dramatic and serious turn. The one common thread in each of these circ*mstances is that you didn't see the storm coming…just like the Armistice Day Blizzard of 1940.
37. Illustrations for Lent Easter Old Testament Texts
Illustration
Jon L. Joyce
1. God destroys as well as preserves [Isaiah 42:14]
Luther says that God is to be both loved and feared. The same God of compassion who is eager to show love to those who turn to him is equally determined to root out and destroy evil. Isaiah is warning us not to be lulled to sleep by thinking only of the kindness of God. He who shows patience toward our waywardness will eventually cease to overlook unatoned sin and will destroy. He holds all the power of the universe in his hands to work his ends. Our eternal destiny is for him to determine. Are we tempting God by clinging to things he opposes? Remember God has said, "I will destroy." The time to repent and make peace with him is now.
2. Christ will restore sight [Isaiah 42:16]
A blind beggar walking down a street on a day in spring carried a sign saying, "It is April, and I am blind." How pitiful that he was blind at any time. But on a spring day it was even worse; he could not see the newly formed leaves on the trees, or the beautiful flowers blooming on every hand. He could not see the earth bathed in sunshine or the glow of a sunset in the western sky. But another blindness is even worse. It can come to those who have retained their physical sight. There is a saying, "None is so blind as he that will not see." When Isaiah talks of the blind he includes everyone who does not have spiritual insight. Children laugh at the phrase, "I see, said the blind man." Yet it is true that the physically blind can see many things which the person with sight overlooks. So God promises to help us in our spiritual blindness. He will show us the path of righteousness, reveal opportunities to serve our fellow man, to improve ourselves, and to see the Christ who is hidden from those who do not believe in Him.
3. Idolators shall be ashamed [Isaiah 42:17]
Idol worship seems like something out of the long past. It brings to mind visions of ignorant people in an earlier age bowing down before a statue which to them is their god. So this verse does not seem to apply to the one who reads it today. Here is where we deceive ourselves. Idolatry is a very subtle thing. It was said of Sampson that he did not know when the Lord had forsaken him, and thought he could go on in strength as he had before. So idolatry creeps upon anyone who is not alert. It is so easy to cater to oneself; to want fame and fortune so badly that we slowly let these desires come between us and God. Beware lest great shame come upon you because idols of today have subtly replaced God in your objectives and desires.
4. God will be praised for his law (Gospel) [Isaiah 42:21]
Our age is one of much disdain for God’s law. The ten commandments are regarded by many as out of date. They are as foolish in disdaining God’s rules and thinking they have outgrown them as was a certain sailor. The captain had pointed out the north star before turning over the wheel to the young seaman. He told the young man to steer constantly toward that star. The captain then took a nap and upon awakening found that the ship was not on course. When he questioned the young sailor what had gone wrong, he was told, "I have sailed past that star, show me another one." No one can sail past the ten commandments. They remain as up-to-date as the day’s news announcements. God has chosen to give honor to his eternal rules, whether they be revealed in the Ten Commandments or in Jesus Christ. The wise will realize the worth of God’s laws and strive to obey and honor them.
38. With a Vengeance
Illustration
For hardy whalers, no ocean was too wide to cross in pursuit of their mighty prizes. In 1819, more than a dozen ships were launched from Nantucket, all headed for distant Pacific hunting grounds. One, the three-masted Essex, was to suffer a calamity so dramatic that its fate inspired a classic American novel--Herman Melville's Moby Dick. For months the ship survived the hazards of rounding Cape Horn and taking its prey. But one day a mammoth sperm whale rammed the Essex head-on. Then the leviathan passed under the vessel, turned, and attacked again. The whale hit, as first mate Owen Chase recalled, "with ten-fold fury and vengeance." The crew abandoned ship, and from their whaleboats watched as the Essex slid into the sea.
39. Cook
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
1 Samuel 9:23 - "And Samuel said to the cook, ‘Bring the portion I gave you, of which I said to you, "Put it aside." ’ "
Cooking for the family was done by the woman, just as today, although, also as today, men occasionally did it. The only professional cooks were in the homes of the very wealthy, and the royalty, and these were probably female slaves. They were probably trained by a type of apprenticeship, and were usually very well treated.
The Jews liked eating in the open air, and would often take their meals in the courtyard; but in the winter they had to be indoors, usually in the one large room that served the family for all its needs. The times of meals were flexible - they ate when they were hungry. The great majority of the people had only two meals a day, the one very early before going to work; the other in the evening when work was done. The evening meal was the only one that required much preparation - the other was merely a snack affair.
A fire in the open air was often considered good enough for cooking: the custom was to hollow out a place and border it with two stones - indeed, the Hebrew word for a cooking fire comes from the same root as "to hollow." There were also little portable stoves with two holes, in which straw and grass were burned. Meat was roasted in an oven, cooked in oil, boiled in water, or cooked on a griddle. Most people preferred boiled meat and fowl. Fish was a staple of the Jews and was boiled or roasted on a wooden or iron spit over a charcoal fire. Many vegetables were eaten raw, but lentils and greens were boiled in oil or water.
The Jews liked their food strongly seasoned. They added not merely salt, but also mustard, capers, cumin, rue, saffron, coriander, mint, dill and jeezer (a kind of wild rosemary); all these were continually used, as well as garlic, onions, and shallots. Pepper was scarce and very expensive: it came in the caravans all the way from India.
Cooking utensils were a shallow iron plate and a frying pan, neither of which had handles until a later time. Cooking pots and dishes were of unbaked, unglazed clay. Deep-fat frying was done on a griddle. Copper kettles and pans were available in later times, but they were very costly.
Knives were made of flint and, later, bronze. Forks were used only in the preparation of food, not in the eating. A kind of flat, broad cup made of tinned metal served instead of a plate - metal because of the ritual uncleanness of earthenware - or else a flat cake of hard bread.
Of course, there were also obligations and restrictions connected with their food. There was the obligation of tithing the slightest thing that made part of any meal, so that the priests should have their due share. In the preparation of dishes, there were the following requirements: lamb had to be roasted over wood from the vine; halme, a kind of aromatic pickle, used for preserving fish, was so carefully regulated that a whole paragraph of the fourteenth chapter of the tractate Shabbath is devoted to it. But above all there were the laws concerning what might and might not be eaten, and it was exceedingly dangerous to disobey them. Pork was absolutely forbidden; the hare was considered an unclean animal; the rabbis disagreed about the camel, and some forbade use of its milk. There was a very rigorous prohibition against eating the flesh of any animal that had not been bled.
The cooks in wealthy households planned the menus, calculated the amount of food needed, bought the food, cut and boned meats and fowl, and the head cook supervised the preparation, cooking, and serving of the meal.\
Today’s cook or chef works in much the same way, depending, of course, on the type of home in which he serves. The most interesting change, perhaps, is the switch from women to men as the chefs and accepted masters of the cordon bleu of today.
40. Virtue in Anxious Times
Illustration
Paul J. Wadell
Anxiety's central message is that we cannot afford to share because we can never have enough. Put more strongly, in a culture marked by anxiety and fear, the very things we have traditionally called sins or vices (hoarding, greed, suspicion) become wise and prudent virtues. Fear, rather than love, governs our lives. But such fear is a kind of idolatry because it suggests we are giving more attention to our own security than we are giving to God. As Scott Bader-Saye warns, "the ethic of security produces a skewed moral vision. It suggests that suspicion, preemption, and accumulation are virtues insofar as they help us feel safe. But when seen from a Christian perspective, such ‘virtues' fail to be true virtues, since they do not orient us to the true good—love of God and neighbor. In fact, they turn us away from the true good, tempting us to love safety more than we love God."
The "human way out" of the despair of our age is through hospitality because a person well practiced in Christian hospitality chooses love over fear, trust over suspicion, and even risk over security.
41. Second Coming Nonsense
Illustration
Staff
The first perversion of the doctrine of the second coming of Christ is perpetrated by those I'm going to call "prophecy mongers." You know these people. They come with their charts and graphs, with their predictions and projections, claiming to have special insight into the workings of God in the world, so that they're able to cue us in on just where we are in the divine timetable. And somehow, every political event of the past fifty years fits neatly into their scheme of things. But Jesus said that no one not even himself knew the day or the hour of his coming, but only the Father.
But there is another distortion of this doctrine that is equally vitiating although in comes from a completely different direction. Here I refer to those who, far from exaggerating the eschatology of Jesus, want to minimize it because they are embarrassed. They rationalize it or demythologize it or spiritualize it, so that they can embrace Jesus and his teachings without getting all the supernatural trimmings that go with it. The fundamentalist and the rationalist share a common assumption about the second coming. They both assume that this is teaching we can easily understand and exploit and have at our disposal, so that it no longer threatens us, no longer hangs over our heads like Damocles's word, ready to fall upon us and shatter our pretty pretensions into a thousand smithereens. The fundamentalist over explains the second coming, and so takes away its mystery, while the rationalist explains it away, robbing it of its meaning.
Jesus said, "Keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." It is here at the point of waiting that most of us have our greatest difficulty.
42. Spiritual Teaching Gifts
Illustration
Dr. Earl Radmacher
The following is an attempt byDr. Earl Radmacher and Gordon McMinn to identify and define spiritual gifts centered around teaching.
- Prophecy: setting before people the Word and wisdom of God persuasively.
- Encouragement: drawing alongside to comfort, encourage, rebuke, and lead someone into insight toward action.
- Teaching: laying down in a systematic order the complete truth of a doctrine and applying it incisively to life.
- The message of wisdom: Locating formerly unknown principles as well as combining known principles of God's Word and communicating them to fresh situations.
- The message of knowledge: Arranging the facts of Scripture, categorizing these into principles, and communicating them to repeated or familiar situations.
- Service Gifts. Contributing: Giving most liberally and beyond all human expectation. Mercy: Being sensitive or empathetic to people who are in affliction or misery and lifting internal burdens with cheerfulness.
- Helps: Seeing tasks and doing them for or with someone in order to lift external burdens.
- Distinguishing spirits: Detecting a genuine or spurious motive by distinguishing the spirit-source behind any person's speech or act.
- Evangelism: Communicating the gospel with power and persuasiveness as well as equipping the saints for evangelism.
- Leadership Gifts. Leadership (executive ability): Standing before people and inspiring followers by leading them aggressively but with care.
- Administration (legislative ability): Standing behind people to collect data, set policy, and develop plans which will guide a course of action with wisdom.
- Faith: Seeing through any problem to the Ultimate Resource.
What about the so-called sign gifts, such as healing and speaking in tongues, referred to in today's text? To us, Hebrews 2:4 suggests that they were intended to be confirming signs for the Apostles, and ceased with them. Others feel they are still for today, but if so, one thing is clear: they are given sovereignly by the Spirit for specific purposes and are the exception, not the rule.
43. Chip It Away!
Illustration
James W. Moore
There is a story about a man who had a huge boulder in his front yard. He grew weary of this big, unattractive stone in the center of his lawn, so he decided to take advantage of it and turn it into an object of art. He went to work on it with hammer and chisel, and chipped away at the huge boulder until it became a beautiful stone elephant. When he finished, it was gorgeous, breath-taking.
A neighbor asked, "How did you ever carve such a marvelous likeness of an elephant?"
The man answered, "I just chipped away everything that didn't look like an elephant!"
If you have anything in your life right now that doesn't look like love, then, with the help of God, chip it away! If you have anything in your life that doesn't look like compassion or mercy or empathy, then, with the help of God, chip it away! If you have hatred or prejudice or vengeance or envy in your heart, for God's sake, and the for the other person's sake, and for your sake, get rid of it! Let God chip everything out of your life that doesn't look like tenderheartedness.
44. God is Laughing at Us
Illustration
Jon L. Joyce
"LO YOUR KING COMES TO YOU. TRIUMPHANT AND VICTORIOUS IS HE, HUMBLE AND RIDING ON AN ASS, ON A COLT, THE FOAL OF AN ASS."
Surely one sign of the lack of perceptiveness of us humans is sometimes we don’t know when we are being ridiculed, laughed at, satirized, made fun of. I remember when we arrived in Japan for the occupation years ago, the missionary’s son who was our regimental interpreter, told me to watch how the Japanese people greeted me. If they would bow and say "Koneechiwa Gozaimas" they were indicating that I was a very honorable person. If they bowed twice, they were indicating that I was a very, very honorable person, but if they bowed three times, they were making fun of me. They were indicating that I thought that I was more honorable than I really was. This is one of the great thrusts of Holy Scripture that we fail to recognize. We don’t see when Almighty God is making fun of us. We can’t seem to understand when God is laughing at us. The Word warns us: "He who sits in the Heavens shall laugh. He shall hold you in derision." But when it happens, we don’t catch it at all. We don’t get it. We don’t understand the satire.
Why do you think God allowed his only-begotten Son to be born in a livery stable? Why was he born in a one-horse town that was the least of Judah? Oh, yes, He was born the Son of a son of David, but that son was only a carpenter, and he certainly wasn’t on any social register. Why do you think that his disciples were all peasants? Why did Jesus pal around with the cheating tax gatherers and with the other outcasts of the society? Why did he walk through hated Samaria and associate with people from that half-breed, heretical race? And now why, again, this Palm Sunday procession?
Oh, don’t you see? God is laughing at us. He is satirizing our own behavior. "Triumphal entry" you call it? Nothing could be further from the truth. Could anything be more stupid and clumsy looking than an unbroken ass’ colt? The sophisticated people of Jerusalem looked down their aristocratic noses from the cool shadows of their balconies to see what all the shouting was about, and all they saw was a motley mob of hicks from the sticks waving palm branches and the very clothes off their own backs. Quite a show! Just about as exciting as a couple of dozen hippies engaged in a march on Washington, and I’m sure that it caused just about the same amount of stir in the City of Jerusalem.
Never did a story build up to a bigger letdown. The palm wavers obviously thought that Christ was riding in to take over the government of the Jews. The Kingdom had come at last! And here they were right in the front pew! They watched him as he stopped the procession and went into the Temple, and when he was inside, they waited breathlessly for some cataclysmic sign from Heaven. And what happened? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! In fact, even the Gospel writers couldn’t quite get the flat taste of it out of their mouths. Mark ends his account by saying: "He went into the Temple, and when He'd looked around at everything, the hour already being late, He went out again." Period! That’s it!
Don’t you see, beloved, God is making fun of us? He’s satirizing all of our triumphal entries. He’s paradying all of our parades. He’s laughing at all of our strutting, preening, prideful pomp and circ*mstance. He’s saying: "This is the kind of thing you enjoy, my children." And what does it all come to? Nothing! You have forgotten one important word in your ancient prophecy of Zechariah that you now see being fulfilled. You have forgotten the one important word, "Behold, your King comes to you humble," - HUMBLE - "and sitting on an ass’s colt."
45. The Reason Why
Illustration
Staff
On February 15, 1947 Glenn Chambers boarded a plane bound for Quito, Ecuador to begin his ministry in missionary broadcasting with the important "Voice of the Andes." But he never arrived. In a horrible moment, the plane carrying Chambers crashed into a mountain peak and spiraled downward. Later it was learned that before leaving the Miami airport, Chambers wanted to write his mother a letter. All he could find for stationery was a page of advertising on which was written the single word "WHY?" Around that word he hastily scribbled a final note. After Chambers's mother learned of her son's death, his letter arrived. She opened the envelope, took out the paper, and unfolded it. Staring her in the face was the question "WHY?"
No doubt this was the questions Jesus' disciples asked when He was arrested, tried, and crucified. And it was probably the questions Joseph of Arimathea asked himself as he approached Pilate and requested the Lord's body (v.58). It must have nagged at him as he wrapped the body in a linen cloth, carried it to his own freshly hewn tomb, and rolled the massive stone into its groove over the tomb's mouth. In the face of his grief, Joseph carried on. He did what he knew he had to do. None of Jesus' relatives were in a position to claim His body for burial, for they were all Galileans and none of them possessed a tomb in Jerusalem. The disciples weren't around to help either.
But there was another reason for Joseph's act of love. In Isaiah 53:9, God directed the prophet to record an important detail about the death of His Messiah. The One who had no place to lay his head would be buried in a rich man's tomb. Joseph probably didn't realize that his act fulfilled prophecy. The full answer to the why of Jesus' death was also several days away for Joseph and the others. All he knew was that he was now a disciple of Jesus and that was enough to motivate his gift of love.
46. A Race Down the Mississippi
Illustration
Max Lucado
Clovis Chappell, a minister from a century back, used to tell the story of two paddleboats. They left Memphis about the same time, traveling down the Mississippi River to New Orleans. As they traveled side by side, sailors from one vessel made a few remarks about the snail's pace of the other. Words were exchanged. Challenges were made. And the race began. Competition became vicious as the two boats roared through the Deep South.
One boat began falling behind. Not enough fuel. There had been plenty of coal for the trip, but not enough for a race. As the boat dropped back, an enterprising young sailor took some of the ship's cargo and tossed it into the ovens. When the sailors saw that the supplies burned as well as the coal, they fueled their boat with the material they had been assigned to transport. They ended up winning the race, but burned their cargo.
God has entrusted cargo to us, too: children, spouses, friends. Our job is to do our part in seeing that this cargo reaches its destination. Yet when the program takes priority over people, people often suffer. How much cargo do we sacrifice in order to achieve the number one slot? How many people never reach the destination because of the aggressiveness of a competitive captain?
47. Radio On and Antenna Up
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
The S.S. California was only six miles away when the Titanic sank, but its radio was turned off. The S.S. Carpathia was a far greater distance away, but its radio was turned on. The distress signal was heard and this vessel arrived in time to save hundreds of lives. The California, however, only ten miles away, became aware of the tragic loss only after it was too late.
I’ve seen that happen in families and among friends. We can be side by side with people and never be aware that they’re torn up inside. Sometimes that’s our fault; sometimes it’s theirs. We can hide from each other. We can also be so preoccupied with our own selves that we are deaf and dumb to the signals for help that loved ones are desperately sending. Keep your radio on and your antenna up. Someone you love may send a signal for help.
48. Working on God's Land
Illustration
Ted W. Engstrom
A pastor once made an investment in a large piece of ranch real estate which he hoped to enjoy during his years of retirement. While he was still an active pastor, he would take one day off each week to go out to his land and work. But what a job! What he had bought, he soon realized, was several acres of weeds, gopher holes, and rundown buildings. It was anything but attractive, but the pastor knew it had potential and he stuck with it.
Every week he'd go to his ranch, crank up his small tractor, and plow through the weeds with a vengeance. Then he'd spend time doing repairs on the buildings. He'd mix cement, cut lumber, replace broken windows, and work on the plumbing. It was hard work, but after several months the place began to take shape. And every time the pastor put his hand to some task, he would swell with pride. He knew his labor was finally paying off.
When the project was completed, the pastor received a neighborly visit from a farmer who lived a few miles down the road. Farmer Brown took a long look at the preacher and cast a longer eye over the revitalized property. Then he nodded his approval and said, "Well, preacher, it looks like you and God really did some work here."
The pastor, wiping the sweat from his face, answered, "It's interesting you should say that, Mr. Brown. But I've got to tell you you should have seen this place when God had it all to Himself!"
49. One True God
Illustration
J. Howard Olds
Paul Tillich said in the 1960's our god is our ultimate concern. Whatever gains our ultimate attention becomes our god. We have problems with idolatry in the 21st century too.
Like Martha in the Bible, we are troubled and concerned over many things. We are concerned about work, family, marriage, health, life. Every concern is tyrannical. It wants to own our whole heart, our whole mind. It wants our infinite attention, our unconditional devotion. I saw a bumper sticker stating "Soccer Rules." In many families that is true. We develop all kinds of gods.
Maybe it's time to pledge our allegiance to the one, true, living, everlasting, God and set our feet to walking in God's ways. We believe in one God. May we see his glory in and through our lives every day.
50. Conditioned For The Journey
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Lord Joseph Duveen, American head of the art firm that bore his name, planned in 1915 to send one of his experts to England to examine some ancient pottery. He booked passage on the Lusitania. Then the German Embassy issued a warning that the liner might be torpedoed. Duveen wanted to call off the trip. “I can’t take the risk of your being killed,” he said to his young employee.
“Don’t worry,” said the man, “I’m a strong swimmer, and when I read what was happening in the Atlantic, I began hardening myself by spending time every day in a tub of ice water. At first I could sit only a few minutes, but this morning, I stayed in that tub nearly two hours.”
Naturally, Duveen laughed. It sounded preposterous. But his expert sailed, and the Lusitania was torpedoed. The young man was rescued after nearly five hours in the chilly ocean, still in excellent condition.
Just as this young man did, so Christians should condition themselves by practicing devotional discipline, behavioral discipline, and discipline in doing good. (Cited in Christianity Today, February 1979, p. 25.)
Note: This story is ubiquitous on the internet and the general facts are true; i.e.,the ship and it's sinking, but we were unable to find verification surrounding the sub plot of the strong determined swimming assistant.
Showing
1
to
50
of
109
results
- Black preachers condemn Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood: 'Nothing is more racist in America'
- Liberty University faces civil rights lawsuit after firing trans-identified employee
- 'Duck Dynasty' star Willie Robertson on turning darkness into light one conversation at a time
- 13-year-old budding preacher who lived for the ‘Glory of God’ killed for camera
- 5 things to know about Kamala Harris' pastor
- Nigerian Christian remained in captivity to aid elderly Muslim woman
- Nigerian bishop leaves UMC amid hom*osexuality schism; regional body’s future uncertain
- Sen. Mike Lee warns of 'increased hostility' toward Christianity in Washington
- Top 5 nominees for 2024 Gospel Music Association Dove Awards
- Russell Brand slams Olympics opening ceremony 'decadence,' shares favorite Bible verse
- Choctaw Bibles Connect Christians with Lost Heritage
- An Assassination Attempt in Brazil Brought Politics into Churches
- In Asian American Churches, Generational Differences Deter Young Leaders
- What Wrestling Taught an Olympic Gold Medalist About God
- O Say Can You See God in These 5 National Anthems?
- Nigerian Church Watches, Prays as Ocean Rises
- New Alliance Aims to Unite Chinese Churches Divided by Geopolitics
- Americans Are Still Inviting People to Church
- ERLC Retracts Announcement Firing President Brent Leatherwood
- Homelessness Hits Record High, Straining Rescue Missions
- Christian Bioethicists Help Students Consider The Moral Complexities Of IVF
- Hinduism: Concepts and Controversies
- Boys, Boys, Boys - 3 Quarks Daily
- 13-year-old budding preacher who lived for the ‘Glory of God’ killed for camera
- Mahesh Bhatt On Giving Daughters Alia And Shaheen Muslim Names: 'My Mother Was Worried...'
- Harris hit with blistering ad targeting Catholic, Hispanic voters on key issue in crucial swing state
- Bride Is Slammed For Wearing See-Through Wedding Dress To Her Church Ceremony
- “The word on the street was, ‘No-one could be playing that without overdubs.’ Well, the secret’s out. I’ve come clean”: Still copping Victor Wooten’s 20-year-old bass licks? You’d better take another look
- Texas pastor resigns over ‘inappropriate and hurtful’ actions
- Genius Candace Owens dismantles evolution theory
- Trump's 'Beautiful Christians' are Not Only Ones Whose Values Matter
- Being Good Is as Important as Being Right
- Blasphème & Olympiques
- Drag Queen in Olympic Opening Ceremony has No Regrets
- Is Hindu Nationalism Friendly to Christianity?
- Where Lynchings Still Happen
- Vatican II: For Better or For Worse
- After the Fall: A Christian's Confession of His Role in Afghanistan
- Art Center Founded By Fr. Rupnik Pushes Back on Removal of Artwork
- The Trad Family
