Articles
Although the Pentateuch is technically an anonymous work, Jewish and Christian tradition attributes its authorship to Moses, the main figure of the story from Exodus to Deuteronomy. The arguments for attributing the authorship of the Pentateuch to Moses come from internal evidence within both Testaments. That Moses is responsible for at least portions of the Pentateuch is suggested by references to his explicit literary activity reflected within the narrative itself (Ex 17:14; 24:4; 34:28; Nm 33:2; Dt 31:9, 22, 24), if not implied in various literary formulas such as “the LORD spoke to Moses” (e.g., Lv 4:1; 11:1; 13:1; Nm 1:1; 2:1; cf. Ex 39:1, 7, 21). Mosaic authorship receives support from the historical books, which use terms such as “the book of the law of Moses” in various forms and references in the preexilic history (Jos 8:30–35; 23:6; 2 Kg 14:6) as well as the postexilic history (e.g., 2 Ch 25:4; Ezr 6:18; Neh 13:1). The same titles are used by NT authors (e.g., Mk 12:26; Lk 24:44; Jn 1:45), even referring to the Pentateuch simply by the name “Moses” at various points (e.g., Mt 19:8; Mk 7:10; Lk 16:29; 24:27; Rm 10:5; 2 Co 3:15).
Even with these examples, nowhere does the text explicitly state that Moses is responsible for the entire compilation of the Pentateuch or that he penned it with his own hand. Rather, a number of factors point to a later hand at work: Moses’s death and burial are referenced (Dt 34), the conquest of Canaan is referred to as past (Dt 2:12), and there is evidence that the names of people and places were updated and explained for later generations (e.g., “Dan” in Gn 14:14; cf. Jos 19:47; Jdg 18:28b–29). Based on these factors, it is reasonable to believe that the Pentateuch underwent editorial alteration as it was preserved within Jewish life and took its final shape after Moses’s lifetime.
Over the last century, the Documentary Hypothesis has dominated academic discussion of the Pentateuch’s composition. This theory posits that the Pentateuch originated from a variety of ancient sources derived from distinct authors and time periods that have been transmitted and joined through a long and complex process. Traditionally these documents are identified as J, E, D, and P. The J source is a document authored by the “Yahwist” (German, Jahwist) in Judah around 840 BC and is so called because the name Yahweh is used frequently in its text. The E source stands for “Elohist” because of its preference for the divine title Elohim and was composed in Israel around 700 BC. The D source stands for “Deuteronomy” because it reflects material found in that book; it was composed sometime around Josiah’s reform in 621 BC. The P document stands for “Priestly” and reflects material that priests would be concerned with in the postexilic time period, approximately 500 BC. This theory and its related forms stem from the scholarly concern over various literary characteristics such as the use of divine names; doublets and duplications in the text (e.g., two creation accounts, two flood stories, two banishments of Hagar and Ishmael); observable patterns of style, terminology, and themes; and alleged discrepancies in facts, descriptions, and geographic or historical perspective.
Various documentary theories of composition have flourished over the last century of pentateuchal scholarship and still have many adherents. However, lack of scholarly agreement about the dating and character of the sources and the rise of other literary approaches to the text have many conservative and liberal scholars calling into question the accuracy and even interpretive benefit of the source theories. Moreover, if the literary observations used to create source distinctions can be explained in other ways, then the Documentary Hypothesis is significantly undermined.
Parallel Days of Creation in Genesis 1
The creation account in Gn 1 is presented not mechanically but poetically. It has structure and symmetry. Numerous things are repeated: “then God said,” “let there be,” “and it was so,” “God called,” “it was good,” and “evening came and then morning.” God is not following a step-by-step instruction manual. He is more like an artist creating a masterpiece, who can paint outside the lines if he wants to.
In addition, the account is not strictly linear but is presented in two interrelated cycles. On days 1–3 God creates domains or regions. On days 4–6 he creates the inhabitants or occupants of those regions.
Throughout this creation account, God is not only bringing things into being but also assigning functions to each thing and thus bringing order and purpose to the creation. As the climax of creation, God creates man and woman in the image of God.
| Day 1 (1:3–5) | Day 4 (1:14–19) |
| Separates light from dark | Creates sun, moon, and stars |
| Day 2 (1:6–8) | Day 5 (1:20–23) |
| Separates the sea from the sky | Creates fish and birds |
| Day 3 (1:9–13) | Day 6 (1:24–31) |
| Separates water, dry ground, creates vegetation | Creates livestock, crawling things, wild animals, humankind |
| The Beginning | Genesis | The End | Revelation |
| “In the beginning God . . .” | 1:1 | “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end” | 21:6 |
| God creates the first heaven and earth, eventually cursed by sin | 1:1 | God creates a new heaven and earth where sin is nowhere to be found | 21:1 |
| Water symbolizes unordered chaos | 1:2 | There is no longer any sea | 21:1 |
| God creates light and separates it from darkness | 1:3–5 | No more night or natural light; God himself is the source of light | 21:23; 22:5 |
| God gives humans dominion over the earth | 1:26–30 | God’s people will reign with him forever | 20:4, 6; 22:5 |
| “Marriage” of Adam and Eve | 1:27–28; 2:7, 18–25 | Marriage of Last Adam and his bride, the church | 19:7; 21:2, 9 |
| Satan introduces sin into world | 3:1–7 | Satan and sin are judged | 19:11–21; 20:7–10 |
| The serpent deceives humanity | 3:1–7, 13–15 | The ancient serpent is bound to keep him from deceiving the nations | 20:2–3 |
| Death enters the world | 3:3; 4:6–8; 6:3 | Death is put to death | 20:14; 21:4 |
| Sin enters the world | 3:6 | Sin is banished from God’s city | 21:8, 27; 22:15 |
| Sinful people refuse to serve/obey God | 3:6–7; 4:6–8; 6:5 | God’s people serve him | 22:3 |
| Community forfeited | 3:8; 4:8 | Genuine community experienced | 21:3, 7 |
| God abandoned by sinful people | 3:8–10; 6:5 | God’s people (new Jerusalem, bride of Christ) made ready for God; marriage of the Lamb | 19:7–8; 21:2, 9–21 |
| Sinful people ashamed in God’s presence | 3:8–11 | God’s people will “see his face” | 22:4 |
| People rebel against the true God, resulting in physical and spiritual death | 3:8–19 | God’s people risk death to worship the true God and thus experience life | 20:4–6 |
| Sin brings pain and tears | 3:16–17; 6:5–6 | God comforts his people and removes crying and pain | 21:4 |
| Sinful people are cursed | 3:16–19 | The curse is removed from redeemed humanity and they become a blessing | 22:3 |
| Sinful people are forbidden to eat from the tree of life | 3:22–24 | God’s people may eat freely from the tree of life | 22:2, 14 |
| Sinful people are sent away from life | 3:22–24 | God’s people are given life and have their names written in the book of life | 20:4–6, 15; 21:6, 27 |
| Exclusion from bounty of Eden | 3:23 | Invitation to marriage supper of the Lamb | 19:9 |
| Sinful humanity is separated from the presence of the holy God | 3:23–24 | God’s people experience God’s holiness (cubed city = most holy place) | 21:15–21 |
| Sinful people are sent away from the garden | 3:23–24 | New heaven/earth includes a garden | 22:2 |
| Sinful people are banished from the presence of God | 3:24 | God lives among his people | 21:3, 7, 22; 22:4 |
| Sinful humanity is cursed with wandering (exile) | 4:10–14 | God’s people are given a permanent home | 21:3 |
| Sinful humanity suffers a wandering exile in the land | 4:11–14 | God gives his children an inheritance | 21:7 |
| Creation begins to grow old and die | 5:6, 8, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31; 6:3 | All things are made new | 21:5 |
| Sin results in spiritual sickness | 6:5 | God heals the nations | 22:2 |
| Water is used to destroy wicked humanity | 6:1–7:24 | God quenches thirst with water from the spring of life | 21:6; 22:1 |
| Sinful people are scattered | 11:3–9 | God’s people unite to sing his praises | 19:6–7 |
| Languages of sinful humanity are confused | 11:8–9 | God’s people are a multicultural people | 21:24, 26; 22:2 |
Other Flood Accounts in the Ancient Near East
The ancient world in which the Israelites lived had a common currency of ideas, traditions, customs, perceptions, and stories. As with any culture, they had their own versions of each of these that were tailored to suit their individual beliefs and culture. But the Israelites also received revelation from their God that, at critical points, drew them out of their cultural surrounding and endowed them with a distinct understanding. In most other ways they remained very similar to their cultural neighbors.
Given the nature of the tradition found commonly in the ancient Near East that there was a flood of immense scope that virtually wiped out the ancient world, it is no surprise that accounts of this flood survive both in the Bible and in the larger culture. Even as the accounts mirror the culture in which they are found, they also reflect common elements that tie them to a central event that they record. The biblical account naturally understands the event as an act of judgment by a single, righteous deity who was disappointed with the sin of his creatures but saved one righteous family from worldwide devastation. The picture of God and humanity is consistent with the biblical ideals.
The ancient Near Eastern flood accounts found in Sumerian texts, in the Atrahasis Epic, and in the Gilgamesh Epic are likewise consistent with the ideas they had about the gods and humanity. Consequently we see a divine council that decides to send the flood with the intention that all humanity be destroyed. It is only by breach of the trust of the council that one god arranges for a few humans to escape the judgment. The reasons for the action of the council are rooted in views of deity current in Mesopotamia. There the gods may be viewed as petty or selfish, and they are understood to have needs that humans meet. In these ancient Near Eastern accounts, the humans that are spared offer a sacrifice to the gods to appease them, and the gods come to recognize their need of humanity.
Numerous other differences could be identified, and none of them is surprising. The similarities attest that a common world binds these cultures together. The distinctions testify to the basic differences in theology and the impact of revelation on the Israelites. There is no need to discuss the question of which culture borrowed elements of their flood account from another culture, for there was no need to borrow what was already ingrained in ancient memory. Of greater significance is the recognition that Israelites had been given a different form of the tradition that coincided with how God was known to them.
A covenant is a binding, formal agreement made between two parties. Covenants play a very important role in the Bible because God is often one of the parties involved in the covenant. In fact, God is the one who usually initiates the covenant, thus binding himself to an agreement or to a set of promises.
God makes several covenants in the OT. In Gn 9 God makes a covenant with Noah (along with his descendants and all living animals) that he will never again destroy all life on the earth with a flood.
God makes a covenant with Abraham in Gn 12; 15; and 17, promising several things: God will make Abraham into a great nation; he will bless Abraham and make his name great; he will bless all peoples on earth through Abraham; and he will give Abraham’s descendants the land of Canaan. An important feature of the Abrahamic covenant is that God appears to bind himself to this covenant unilaterally. That is, the Abrahamic covenant is a one-sided or “divine commitment” covenant. God puts stipulations on himself, but not on Abraham and his descendants. Thus in the NT Paul will associate the Abrahamic covenant with the concept of “grace.”
The Mosaic covenant, by contrast, is quite different, for it emphasizes human obligation (“keeping the law”). The Mosaic covenant is defined by the laws of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This covenant delineates the terms by which Israel can live in the promised land with God in their midst and receive spectacular blessings. In the NT, Paul will associate the Mosaic covenant with “law.”
In 2 Sm 7 God makes a covenant with David, promising to establish a Davidic dynasty (“house”) that will last forever. This covenant also appears to be one-sided, with God being the primary party that takes on obligations.
Finally, in Jr 31 God promises that in the future he will make a new covenant. This covenant will be very different from the old covenant (i.e., the Mosaic covenant), for in the new covenant God’s laws will be written on people’s hearts instead of on stone. This covenant will be characterized by forgiveness of sins and a much greater knowledge and understanding of God. Like the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, the new covenant is a one-sided, divine-commitment type of covenant. In the NT, Jesus establishes this covenant at the Last Supper when he declares, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20).
The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants play a critical role in the OT story and in connecting the OT to the NT. God’s fulfillment of these covenants drives the story throughout the OT and into the NT. Israel will fail miserably at keeping the terms of the Mosaic covenant, and thus they will experience the judgment promised in Deuteronomy (the exile). God, however, in his grace, continues to be faithful to his unilateral promises in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, so even as Israel shatters the Mosaic covenant, there is still hope for a future. The OT prophets will proclaim judgment on Israel because they broke the Mosaic covenant, but the prophets will proclaim hope for a glorious future, based on God’s promises in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, promises that find ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ as he inaugurates the promised new covenant.
The Detestable Acts of Sodom and Gomorrah
The biblical narrative regarding the degradation and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah indicates that their sin was grievous (Gn 18:20; see also Gn 13:13). When the two angelic visitors arrive, the men of the city, both young and old, ask to “have sex with” (Hb yada) them. As an alternative, Lot offers his two virgin daughters, intended as sexual substitutes. While the Hebrew verb yada occurs frequently and characteristically simply means “to know,” ten times in Genesis it has strong overtones of sexual union.
There are two explicit commentaries on the Genesis narrative later in the biblical canon. The first is provided by Ezekiel, from whom we learn that Sodom and the surrounding cities “had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn’t support the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable acts before [God]” (Ezk 16:49–50). Clearly, homosexual practice was not one singular sin there. It was one in the midst of a culture rife with things that were “detestable” in God’s eyes. “Detestable” is used over a hundred times in the Hebrew Bible of things that run absolutely counter to the nature of God. It also appears in Lv 18 and 20. The second direct response to the incident is Jude’s condemnation of the sexual license in Sodom and Gomorrah (Jd 7).
In sum, Sodom and Gomorrah became the paradigm for comprehensively destructive evil (cf. Is 1:10; Jr 23:14; Mt 10:5–15; 11:20–24; Lk 10:1–15), representing societies entirely corrupt and hardened beyond repentance. This sobering characteristic is particularly evident in Jesus’s references to the cities. Furthermore, what we cannot ignore is that the Genesis narrative of that pervasive evil centers on the perversion of sexuality, starting with men wanting men, followed by Lot’s offering his daughters, and then Lot’s daughters engaging their father in sexual activity.
Genesis 10:15 states that “Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth” (see also 1 Ch 1:13). The descendants of Heth, referred to as the Hethites, show up frequently in the book of Genesis as one of the indigenous groups living in the land of Canaan at the time of Abraham and the patriarchs (Gn 15:20; 23:3–20; 25:9–10; 26:34; 27:46; 49:29–30, 32; 50:13). Likewise, in the time of the exodus and the conquest, when the inhabitants of the land of Canaan are listed, the Hethites are usually included as one of the groups that were to be conquered and driven out (Ex 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23, 28; 33:2; 34:11; Nm 13:29; Dt 7:1; 20:17; Jos 3:10; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11). The Hethites were a Semitic people group, closely related culturally and linguistically to the Canaanites.
A very different people group inhabited the “Land of Hatti,” located well to the north of Canaan in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Ethnically and culturally these people were Indo-European. From around 1800 BC to 1200 BC they maintained a very strong geopolitical presence in Anatolia (Turkey), leaving behind extensive archaeological and literary records. Historians typically refer to these people as “the Hittites.” In describing the northern limits of the promised land, Jos 1:4 is probably referring to this region (“all the land of the Hittites”).
Unfortunately, in Hebrew the terms used to refer to these two very different groups are similar, and early in English Bible translation history they were often confused. This mix-up continues even today, as many English translations often mistranslate references to the Canaan-indigenous Hethites as “the Hittites.” In actuality, there are very few references in the Bible to the Anatolia-dwelling Hittites and, as indicated above, numerous references to the Canaan-indigenous Hethites.
The Two Primary Names for God in the Old Testament
The OT uses two primary Hebrew words for God. The first is Elohim (Hb elohim), the name used in Gn 1:1 (“In the beginning God [elohim] created the heavens and the earth”). The word elohim occurs 2,570 times in the OT. It is a generic term and just means “god.” It can be used of the true God of Israel or it can be used of false gods like Baal or Molech. Almost all Bible translations will translate this word as “God” (capitalized) if it refers to the God of Israel, and as “god” or “gods” (without caps) if it refers to the pagan gods of Israel’s neighbors. Technically elohim is in a plural form, so when used of pagan deities it can be translated as “gods” (plural). Yet when used of the God of Israel, this plural form is always used with singular verbs and with singular pronouns (“he” and “him,” not “they”), so it clearly refers to a singular entity. In this case the plural form in Hebrew is used to stress majesty or intensification. Elohim is used especially in contexts of God relating to the entire world (his creation, his power over the nations, etc.).
The other central name used for God in the OT is Yahweh (Hb yhwh). This Hebrew word occurs over 6,800 times and functions as the personal name of God. It is used in contexts of God’s personal relationship with people, especially through the covenant. Thus throughout the OT, God will frequently say, “I am Yahweh, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (or something similar to this), stressing the close connection between his name, Yahweh, and his strong action of deliverance as seen in the exodus. The character of God as revealed through the name Yahweh is best understood by seeing and grasping what he did in the exodus story.
The name Yahweh is probably related to the Hebrew verb meaning “to be” (hayah). Thus God’s self-identification to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3:14) is a clear (yet complex) wordplay on the name Yahweh. In most English Bibles the name Yahweh is usually translated as “the LORD,” using small capital letters. It doesn’t really mean “lord,” as in the sense of “master,” although it certainly implies that relationship.
The two names (Elohim and Yahweh) are often used together or in the same context. Usually in this case the stress is that Yahweh is Israel’s God (Elohim). Thus in Dt 6:4–5, Moses declares to Israel, “Listen, Israel: The LORD [yhwh] our God [elohim], the LORD [yhwh] is one. Love the LORD [yhwh] your God [elohim] with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.”
Each episode in Ex 7–10 concludes with a reference to Pharaoh’s heart. Although there are subtle variations in wording, on each occasion the reference to Pharaoh’s heart is linked to his refusal to release the Israelites. This connection needs to be interpreted carefully, because it can easily be misunderstood. Unfortunately, the references to Pharaoh’s heart being “hard” are usually understood as implying that he lacks compassion. This is not how ancient Israelites would have understood the concept. For them, the various verbs associated with Pharaoh’s heart imply that he is resolute (e.g., see the CSB footnote for Ex 4:21). His heart or will is strong. In spite of the signs and wonders, Pharaoh remains committed to his initial rejection of God’s request for the release of the Israelites.
Although it is sometimes suggested that God forces Pharaoh to act against his own will in order to continue the series of signs and wonders, the opposite is true. God attempts to persuade Pharaoh by bringing pressure to bear on him, but this pressure is always removed. When not under duress, Pharaoh is free to choose what to do. Remarkably, the Lord does not impose his will on Pharaoh, and he does not encroach on Pharaoh’s freedom to reject him. Ironically, God even strengthens Pharaoh’s resolve, enabling the Egyptian king to remain faithful to his own inner convictions, even though these are against God and the Israelites.
Unlike the tyrannical pharaohs of Egypt, God does not impose his will on others by force. While he uses extraordinary signs in order to persuade Pharaoh, these are limited in both scope and time. Although Pharaoh occasionally indicates a willingness to release the Israelites, he reverts to his original position when each sign is removed. This is a sad reminder of how ingrained is human enmity toward God.
The ten plagues against Egypt are purposeful manifestations of God’s sovereign power. In response to Pharaoh’s challenge (Ex 5:2) the plagues demonstrate to him and to Egypt the identity and power of God (Ex 7:5, 17; 9:14–16; 14:4). The “hand” that Pharaoh presumes to wield is the Lord’s attribute. The mighty acts of God gain freedom for Israel, confirming that they are God’s people (Ex 8:22–23) and he is their God (Ex 10:1–2). These events make an indelible mark on the corporate memory of Israel (Pss 78:1–8, 44–51; 105:28–36). Pharaoh was raised up so that God’s name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Ex 9:16). Jethro hears and joins with the Israelites in worshiping God (Ex 18:8–12). Rahab tells the spies that the inhabitants of Canaan have heard of God’s activities (Jos 2:8–11). Centuries later the Philistines express their fear of the God who struck the Egyptians with the plagues (1 Sm 4:8).
The plagues directly challenge the Egyptian worldview, bringing judgment on all the gods of Egypt (Ex 7:4; 10:2; 12:12; Nm 33:4). The last two plagues are especially sharp attacks because the sun was the primary deity, and Pharaoh was its earthly representative, responsible for maintaining cosmic order. God mobilized creation on behalf of his children, using timing and intensifying aberrations in the natural order, many of which the Egyptians had deified. Finally, these plagues foreshadow the cosmic eschatological plagues, including hail, fire, blood (Rv 8:6–8), and locusts (Rv 9:1–11). The two unnamed witnesses of Rv 11:6 will have power to shut up the sky, turn the waters into blood, and strike the earth with every kind of plague. In this foreshadowing the sovereign God is reducing the natural order to chaos, and yet it is chaos under his control.
The regular inundation of the Nile began midsummer and continued until September or October. A large flood upriver in the Blue Nile increased the small organisms that gave a reddish color to the water, absorbed oxygen, and caused death. If that late-summer event is the first plague, then the whole series takes well over half a year. This would enable the Egyptians to replenish the livestock after multiple attacks on domestic animals.
As each of the plagues tears at the foundations of Egyptian economy, Pharaoh appears to capitulate, requesting that Moses pray for relief and declaring that they can go and worship (Ex 8:8, 28; 9:28; 10:17, 24). As the devastation increases, Pharaoh even acknowledges his sin, seeking forgiveness (Ex 9:27; 10:16–17), and Moses consistently serves as mediator. The plagues stop as Moses calls on the Lord in response to Pharaoh’s plea for relief, interceding on behalf of this supremely evil ruler. Nevertheless, Pharaoh’s heart grows increasingly obdurate. Only after a tenth and final plague will Pharaoh finally let the Israelites go.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and the people began their journey toward the land of promise, they were a people without a clear identity and purpose. They left behind an Egyptian sojourn of 430 years. At the Red Sea, the Lord orchestrated one of the most stupendous miracles of the OT. The Israelites’ crossing of this body of water on dry ground represented the Lord’s commitment to bring to pass what he had promised to his people and served as a paradigm for God’s character and activity in the rest of the OT. Once the people camped at the base of Mount Sinai, the Lord then led Israel to a greater depth in their relationship with him.
TEN COMMANDMENTS: CORE OF THE LAW
Moses ascended Mount Sinai as Israel’s representative to receive the law from the Lord. The Lord himself etched the words of the Ten Commandments on two stone tablets (Ex 20:1–17; Dt 5:6–21). These ten far-reaching divine requirements represented the heart of what the Lord expected of his people. The first four commandments focus on one’s relationship with God (vertical) while the other six commandments give attention to one’s relationship with fellow Israelites (horizontal).
It is important to notice that the Ten Commandments begin with a preface, something common in ancient Near Eastern treaties. This preface or prologue generally describes the past dealings of the parties of the treaty. In this passage, the prologue demonstrates that God did not deliver his covenant demands to Israel in a vacuum, but he delivered them in the context of an intimate relationship, clearly evidenced by his surpassing character and abundant activity on Israel’s behalf. His gift of the law was preceded by an act of love and grace. He gave these covenant demands to a people with whom he had already established a relationship, not as a means to enter that relationship (which always was and is “by faith”).
It is also essential to understand these commandments as requirements anchored in a covenant relationship. The Lord began that relationship with the descendants of Abraham (Gn 12; 15; 17) but formalizes and deepens that relationship with the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law of Moses. These covenant demands give concrete direction to Israel’s relationship with God. They are to obey these stipulations not purely for the sake of obedience but to demonstrate the character of the Lord to the surrounding nations (Ex 19:4–6; Dt 26:16–19).
DETAILED LEGISLATION: DELINEATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The detailed rules and regulations that fill much of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are not a free-floating set of rules that have no connection with the Ten Commandments. Rather, they represent the detailed application of the character of God to every area of an Israelite’s life. Furthermore, these regulations operate in two basic spheres: vertical and horizontal (cf. Christ’s summary of the Mosaic law into two spheres—Lk 10:25–28). Some laws, primarily those concerning the worship ritual and requirements that do not directly impact fellow Israelites (dietary regulations, for example), focus on an Israelite’s walk with God. They can be summed up as a call to live a life of total allegiance before the Lord. Other laws concern the way Israelites should treat their fellow citizens. In summary, God’s chosen people are to treat one another with love, justice, and equity.
Sacrifices in the Old Testament
Sacrifice is often synonymous with offering, occurring frequently in the OT in the context of worship. Though sacrifice in the Bible is primarily directed to the worship of the God of Israel (e.g., Gn 46:1; Ex 3:18; 5:3; 8:8; 20:24), it also reflects the cultural practices of the neighboring ancient Near Eastern peoples (e.g., Ex 22:20; 34:15; Dt 32:17; Jdg 16:23; Ps 106:37). The concept of sacrifice is introduced early in biblical history. In the opening chapters of Genesis, God covers Adam and Eve’s nakedness with animal skins, and Abel brings animal offerings to God. Both acts involve the shedding of blood, which is essential for some types of sacrifices.
The act of sacrifice typically involved the giving of something valuable (food, animals, or, among Israel’s neighbors Moab and Ammon, even humans) to a being esteemed or feared as greater, such as a deity or sovereign. Various subcategories of sacrifices existed within the sacrificial system. Closely associated with the annual festivals, the laws on meat and meal offerings also described what portions the participants could eat after God and the Levites received their designated portions. In this way, corporate sacrifice stressed forgiveness, blessing, and fellowship.
During the time of the divided monarchy, however, the sacrificial system became especially corrupt. The kings and priests of Israel and Judah merged many of the pagan sacrificial practices of their neighbors with that prescribed in Leviticus, sometimes even abandoning the biblical practice altogether. These inadequate sacrifices, coupled with superficial religious practices and the horrendous practice of child sacrifice (Mc 6:6–8), incurred the condemnation of the prophets (e.g., Is 1:10–17; Jr 7:1–29).
Skin Disease in the Old Testament
“Skin disease” (Hb tsaraat; traditionally translated “leprosy”) is a term referring to various blemishes that may appear on skin, cloth, leather, and interior walls of houses. Common to each of the conditions is that they appear on a surface, quickly increase in size, degrade the appearance of the surface on which they are found, and cause the afflicted person or object to be removed from the community of the Lord’s people.
Eleven passages in the OT make reference to skin diseases: four describe this condition or provide guidelines associated with it (Lv 13:2–14:57; 22:4; Nm 5:2; Dt 24:8), six mention individuals afflicted with it (Ex 4:6; Nm 12:10; 2 Kg 5:7–27; 7:3–10; 15:5; 2 Ch 26:16–21), and one includes it in a curse (2 Sm 3:29).
Descriptions of the condition as it affects a person’s skin are provided in Lv 13:2–44. The affliction creates a whitish or reddish patch that expands noticeably within a week’s time; the affected area may include a boil, raw skin, scab, or discolored hair. Medically, these symptoms are associated with favus, kwashiorkor, psoriasis, eczema, or seborrheic dermatitis. They do not seem to describe Hansen’s disease, the more common name for what is today termed “leprosy.” Hansen’s disease is a slow-developing bacterial infection that typically has a three- to five-year incubation period, produces large nodules on the skin, leads to nerve damage and weakness in the arms and legs, and may result in the loss of bodily extremities.
The skin disease that can affect cloth, leather, and dwellings produces a reddish or greenish discoloration that spreads within a week’s time. This description fits well with mold infestations, which can grow on any of these surfaces in the presence of moisture.
Persons diagnosed with this condition in the OT are to wear torn clothing, leave their hair hanging loose, cover their mouth, and live apart from the community of God’s people. If their condition clears up, a priest can authorize their reentry into the community following an eight-day ritual involving animal sacrifice, washing, shaving, and the presentation of an offering (see Lv 14:1–32). Cloth, leather, and affected building materials are to be destroyed.
Because the afflicted person or object is removed from the community of God’s people, skin disease is associated with divine judgment (see Nm 12:10; 2 Sm 3:29; 2 Kg 5:27; 2 Ch 26:19–21).
The Day of Atonement and God’s Justice
On the Day of Atonement, God vindicates his reputation for justice concerning his treatment of two kinds of sins: (1) expiable sins of faulty but loyal people, which he has already forgiven, and (2) inexpiable sins, for which the disloyal are already condemned. The process of forgiving truly guilty people affects God’s sanctuary or place of enthronement, founded on his righteous and just principles of administration (Ps 97:2) and representing his name or reputation (Dt 12:5, 11, 21; Ezk 20:9). He is just when he vindicates the innocent and condemns the guilty (Dt 25:1; 1 Kg 8:32); but he also mercifully forgives the guilty, thereby upsetting the balance between justice and mercy and taking on himself a burden of judicial responsibility (2 Sm 14:9). The fact that God bears this kind of responsibility when he forgives (Ex 34:7) explains why his priests bear it as his representatives (Lv 10:17) and why his sanctuary bears accumulated “defilement” (representing a problem) from forgiven sins. The cleansing of his sanctuary through sacrifice represents God’s vindication. Vindication of the Judge simultaneously vindicates the forgiveness that he has granted his people. Those who fail to show loyalty in these ways are “cut off” or destroyed (Lv 23:29–30). So the Day of Atonement is Israel’s “Judgment Day.”
The NT teaches that, because of the sacrifice of Christ, which pays our debt for sin, God is right when he justifies a person who has faith in Jesus (Mt 6:12; Rm 3:21–26). But God’s justice still requires that he judge believers (Rm 14:10–12; Heb 10:30; 1 Pt 4:17) to show that their faith continues (Col 1:23) and is alive because it works through love (Gl 5:6; Jms 2:18–26). This judgment considers works (cf. Ec 12:14; Dn 7:10) not because a person is made righteous by one’s own performance but because works provide evidence of faith, by which believers receive God’s gift of grace (Eph 2:8–9). This evidence of faith does not inform God, who already knows everything and can read thoughts (1 Co 4:5); rather, it demonstrates to his created beings, who cannot read thoughts of faith, that he is fair when he extends mercy. Thus the judgment in the NT has the same function as the ancient Day of Atonement judgment: to vindicate the character of God, which perfectly balances mercy and justice in love (cf. Ps 85:10).
| Festival | Scripture | Date | Origin | Summary | New Testament Connection |
| Passover (Pesach) | Ex 12:1–13; Lv 23:5 | Nisan 14 (spring) | The first Passover is linked to the final plague in Egypt when every firstborn son was to die. The Lord spared (“passed over”) those households where a lamb’s blood was put on the door frames at his direction. | Passover commemorates the exodus from Egypt. As the family gathers in their home, an oral review of this event is coupled with a meal whose components (bitter herbs, unleavened bread, and lamb) assist in recalling the details of the exodus. | As a Jew, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem for Passover many times. Prior to his death, Jesus ate a Passover meal with his disciples and used it to initiate the meal known as the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:17–30). Christians linked the death of Jesus with the Passover lamb (1 Co 5:7–8). |
| Feast of Unleavened Bread (Hag Hamatzot) | Ex 12:14–20; Lv 23:6–8 | Nisan 15–21 (spring) | This feast also began with the exodus from Egypt when the Lord directed his people to remove yeast from their homes. All baked goods were to be made without the use of yeast. | Together with Passover, the activities of this feast commemorate the exodus. For one week, yeast is removed from the home and all the bread eaten is unleavened. This is a week of special worship services, and regular work is suspended. | Jesus would have joined the Jewish families who streamed to Jerusalem for this celebration. Based on its negative connotations in this festival, “yeast” became a metaphor for something bad (Mt 16:12; Lk 12:1; 1 Co 5:7). |
| Feast of Weeks / Pentecost (Shavuot) | Ex 23:16; Lv 23:15–21 | Sivan 6 (spring) | This became part of the Israelite annual calendar at Mount Sinai. | Fifty days after Passover (pente- means “fifty”), God’s people were to give thanks for the wheat harvest during this agricultural festival. To remind them of the source of blessing and encourage them to give thanks to God, the people were to bring an offering of grain products to the temple. After the OT era, this festival also commemorated the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. | The Jews who heard and responded to Peter’s Pentecost sermon had traveled to Jerusalem and were at the temple to participate in this festival (Ac 2). |
| Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) | Lv 23:23–25; Nm 29:1–6 | Tishri 1 (fall) | This became part of the Israelite annual calendar at Mount Sinai. | The sounding of the ram’s horn marks the beginning of the Jewish year. This day regular work was to cease, and special worship was to commence the year. It came to mark the start of a ten-day period of repentance leading to the Day of Atonement. | No specific reference to the Feast of Trumpets is made in the NT. |
| Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) | Lv 16:1–34 | Tishri 10 (fall) | This became part of the Israelite annual calendar at Mount Sinai. | This was the holiest day in the calendar, when the people were cleansed of their sins (Lv 16:30). It was a day for fasting and prayer. The high priest entered the most holy place to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. The high priest also confessed the sins of the people over a goat that was then driven into the wilderness. | The imagery of this day is used in Hebrews to speak of the way in which the blood of Jesus and his sacrifice brings final atonement to the world in the way that the offering on the Day of Atonement did not (Heb 9:11–28). |
| Feast of Shelters (Sukkot) | Lv 23:33–44; Nm 29:12–40 | Tishri 15–21 (fall) | This became part of the Israelite annual calendar at Mount Sinai. | During the fall fruit harvest, God’s people were to suspend work and spend time in worship for seven days to reflect on the years in the wilderness prior to the arrival in the promised land. The portable shelters made from branches reminded them of the shelters in which their ancestors lived (Neh 8:14–17). Prayers were offered for the winter rains, and a priest carried water from the Siloam pool and poured it out at the base of the great altar. | Jesus attended this festival and used its symbolism to teach about his identity as the Messiah (Jn 7:1–39). |
| Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) | Jn 10:22 | Kislev 25 (winter) | During the intertestamental period, the Jerusalem temple was liberated from pagans and rededicated by the Maccabees in 164 BC. During the eight-day celebration that followed, there was insufficient oil to keep the temple menorah burning. Yet a one-day supply of oil miraculously lasted eight days. | This is a time of celebration and reflection on the rededication of the temple. In time various rituals were added to the celebration, including the use of the Hanukkah candleholder. | Jesus faced a hostile crowd in the temple complex during this festival, a crowd not ready to celebrate but stone him for his claims to be God (Jn 10:22). |
| Purim (Purim) | Est 9 | Adar 13–14 (winter) | When Haman plotted the destruction of the Jews (selecting the day by casting of the purim, or “lots”), the Lord used Esther to prevent the atrocity. The day of the intended destruction and realized deliverance became the Jewish festival of Purim. | This day of celebration and gift giving recalls the divine mercy that turned a day associated with mourning into a day of joy, a day when the Lord saved the Jews from their enemies. | No specific reference to Purim is made in the NT. |
How Accurate Are the Census Figures in Numbers?
Two to three million is a lot of people to survive and move in a wilderness setting, where logistics would be daunting for a small fraction of this number. In addition, the Israelites took a large number of livestock with them (Ex 12:38). Consequently, many scholars have questioned whether the census figures in Nm 1 are historical and have reconsidered how the total should be calculated. For example, the Hebrew word for “thousand” (elep) can also refer to a tribal subunit, or clan (e.g., Jdg 6:15; 1 Sm 10:19), so some have regarded the 603,000 figure as 603 contingents consisting of far fewer than 1,000 members each.
A number of factors have made it problematic to reduce the census figures down to a humanly manageable size:
1. Several biblical books agree that the number of Israel’s able-bodied men during the early periods of the exodus, conquest, and judges was high (Ex 12:37; 38:26; Nm 26:51; Jdg 20:2, 15, 17).
2. Internal consistency in Nm 1–3 requires reading the 603,550 total (Nm 1:45) as an ordinary number. This figure is the sum of the tribal tallies, which include not only thousands but also hundreds and tens. The Israelite firstborn males from a month old and upward total 22,273 (Nm 3:43), which includes single digits. The difference between the firstborn and the 22,000 Levites (Nm 3:39), who replace them as God’s special servants, is 273 (Nm 3:46), for whom five shekels apiece, totaling 1,365 shekels, are given to the priests (Nm 3:50). These are calculations of ordinary math (cf. Ex 30:12–16; 38:25–26).
3. In Nm 31:32–40, large numbers of captured animals are formatted the same way as the numbers in the census reports of chapters 1 and 26. One could hardly speak of tribal or military contingents of animals.
Large numbers of Israelites at the time of the exodus and wilderness journey are in harmony with two themes in the Pentateuch. First, there was explosive Israelite population growth in Egypt that alarmed Pharaoh but fulfilled God’s covenant promise to Abraham that he would have innumerable descendants (Gn 13:16; 15:5; 16:10; Ex 1:1–22). Second, deliverance from Egypt (including at the Red Sea) and survival in the wilderness were totally impossible without mighty, divine miracles (cf. Ex 19:4; 20:2).
Numbers 12:1 suggests that Moses married a Cushite woman. A helpful question to pursue is, who are the Cushites? Similarly, does his marriage to a Cushite have any special significance? The Hebrew word for “Cush” or “Cushite” shows up in the OT fifty-four times, indicating that the Cushites were not an obscure group in the OT era, but one that played an important role in the life of Israel.
Traditional translations of the Hebrew word for “Cush” have varied. The Greeks called everything south of Egypt by the name Ethiopia, but the modern country of Ethiopia is not the same place as the ancient kingdom of Cush, lying well to the southeast. Nubia is a later Latin name for the area.
The kingdom of Cush lay to the south of Egypt, along the curvy part of the Nile River in what is now the country of Sudan. It was an identifiable entity from before 2000 BC until AD 350. Cush was famous for gold mines and mercenary soldiers. Because of the gold mines, the Egyptians, throughout the OT period, made it a top priority to keep Cush as part of their empire. Most of the time Egypt dominated the Cushites, but toward the end of the eighth century BC the Cushites overran Egypt and actually ruled Egypt for a while (see Is 37:9 and 2 Kg 19:9 for Cushite interaction with Israel/Judah during this period). After several engagements, eventually the Assyrians defeated the Cushites and ended their time of Egyptian domination (and their status as world power and major geopolitical player in the region). Ebed-melech, the Cushite who rescues Jeremiah, is probably a mercenary in the Egyptian army (Jr 38).
At the time of Moses, the Egyptians controlled Cush, and there were probably thousands of Cushites in various occupations throughout Egypt. If Moses married a Cushite woman, she was probably part of the “mixed crowd” mentioned in Ex 12:38 who left Egypt with the Israelites.
Because of their close relationship with the Egyptians, the Cushites appear numerous times in ancient Egyptian art (stone monuments and tomb paintings). These depictions of the Cushites portray them as black Africans. Thus there is little doubt that in Nm 12:1 “Cushite” refers to a black African woman.
Numbers 22:1–7 indicates that Balaam was a diviner or sorcerer living in Mesopotamia (cf. Jos 13:22). The words “sorcery” and “divination” are broad terms that refer to a wide range of magic-related practices that were common throughout the Near East during the biblical era. Usually this involved using various techniques to communicate with supernatural forces such as gods, demons, or other spiritual beings in order to determine the future, ward off evil, change something for the better (blessings), or change something for the worse (curses). Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of ancient literary texts from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia that contain accounts, recipes, or incantations that were used by these professional sorcerers/diviners. Numerous divination techniques were common throughout the region: for example, astrology; observing the pattern made by drops of oil dripped into a bucket of water; observing the entrails of sacrificed animals, especially their liver; and observing the flight pattern of birds.
Educated, professional sorcerers/diviners were typically part of most royal courts in Mesopotamia and in Egypt (recall the magicians who confront Moses in the court of Pharaoh; e.g., Ex 7:11). As in the case of Balaam, it appears they could also occasionally be hired by others. These individuals composed a powerful class in most of the ancient Near Eastern societies.
In Deuteronomy, God strictly forbids this kind of divination and sorcery. Deuteronomy 18:9–14 gives an extensive list of many related practices that are forbidden for the Israelites. These methods are described as something God hates (Dt 18:12). In the very next passage (Dt 18:15–22) God explains that he will be contacted not through divination but through the true prophets that he himself will choose.
Divination and sorcery continued into the NT era. In Ac 8:9–25 Peter encounters a powerful sorcerer named Simon Magus. At the beginning of Paul’s missionary journeys he encounters a Jewish sorcerer on the isle of Cyprus (Ac 13:6–7). Other divination/sorcery/magic practices are mentioned in numerous places in the NT (Ac 16:16; 19:19; Rv 9:21; 18:23; 21:8; 22:15).
Hittite Treaties and the Structure of Deuteronomy
God’s covenant with Israel in Deuteronomy has similarities to ancient Near Eastern treaties made between suzerains (monarchs) and their vassals among the Hittites. The parallel between Hittite treaties and Deuteronomy gives insight into the relationship between law and covenant: God, like a suzerain, is the great King and initiator of the covenant. The Israelites, like the vassals of the Hittite treaties, are inferiors in the relationship and merely receive the offer of a relationship. Moreover, God’s laws, like the stipulations of treaties, regulate a relationship only after it is established. Keeping stipulations of treaties did not establish a relationship between the Hittites and their vassals; instead, the relationship was established first by accepting the treaty, and then came the obligation to keep the stipulations. Similarly, law keeping did not establish Israel’s relationship with God; the covenant did. Thus covenant is more basic than law, since the covenant establishes a relationship, not the keeping of the laws. Even under the Mosaic covenant a relationship with God was based on God’s gracious offer of a covenant relationship, not on Israel’s keeping the law first.
The term “holy war,” though never used in the Bible, characterizes well the wars that Israel fought at God’s command (also known as herem warfare or Yahweh war), particularly those within the promised land. God is present with Israel in war, and thus the battlefield becomes holy ground. God gives Israel instructions concerning the waging of war in Dt 7 and 20.
BEFORE THE BATTLE
God tells Israel when to go to war. Israel’s leaders cannot engage in battle without first hearing from God. God reveals himself to Joshua, for instance, before the battle of Jericho to give him instructions (Jos 5:13–15). David inquires of God through the priest Abiathar, who presumably uses oracular devices to discover God’s will (1 Sm 23:1–6). Joshua makes a serious error in not seeking God’s will in the matter of the Gibeonites (Jos 9:14).
Once the Israelites learn that God wants them to go to battle, they must spiritually prepare themselves. Since God makes his presence known on the battlefield, the troops must be in a state of ritual purity comparable to those who visit the sanctuary. Before the conquest, for instance, it is necessary for the fighting men to undergo circumcision and to observe the Passover (Jos 5:2–12). Prebattle sacrifices are also required (1 Sm 13).
DURING THE BATTLE
The ark of the covenant plays a central role in holy war, carried by priests and accompanying the army. The ark is a powerful symbol of God’s presence and indicates to the army that God fights for them. The march into battle takes the form of a religious procession. The priests carrying the ark go first, while singers praise God (2 Ch 20:20–21). The long march in the wilderness has the character of such a march into battle, since Moses begins the day’s journey by shouting, “Arise, LORD! Let your enemies be scattered, and those who hate you flee from your presence” (Nm 10:35). Then the ark carried by priests leads the way.
Since God is present with the army, the number of troops and the quality of their weapons are unimportant. Indeed, on occasion when Israel has an ample supply of troops, God commands that the war leader reduce their number, as in the famous story of Gideon paring down his troops from thirty-two thousand to three hundred (Jdg 7). The purpose of this reduction is to demonstrate to the people with certainty that they win the battle only because of God’s strength. The inexperienced David, armed with a slingshot, expresses this sentiment to Goliath before he kills him: “I come against you in the name of the LORD of Armies. . . . This whole assembly will know that it is not by sword or by spear that the LORD saves, for the battle is the LORD’S” (1 Sm 17:45, 47). Although the Israelites must engage the enemy, they know for certain that it is God who provides the victory.
AFTER THE BATTLE
Since God wins the battle for Israel, the proper response is praise (e.g., Ex 15; Jdg 5; Pss 24; 98; 149). The treatment of the plunder and prisoners of war depends on whether the battle takes place in the promised land. If the battle takes place outside the land, then, while the men are killed, the women and children are spared. If the battle takes place in the land, then herem goes into effect. The Hebrew word herem (e.g., Lv 27:29; Dt 7:26; Jos 7:12; 1 Kg 20:42; Is 43:28; cf. Nm 21:2–3; Dt 2:34; 7:2; Jos 2:10; 10:1; Jdg 1:17; 1 Sm 15:8–9, 20; Is 34:2, 5) is difficult to translate, but it is clear that it means that all the plunder goes to God (the sanctuary treasury) and that all the people (men, women, and children), and sometimes all the animals, are killed. The purpose of this is to keep the inhabitants of the land from influencing Israel to worship other gods. Also, God uses Israel as an instrument of his judgment against these sinful nations.
WARFARE AGAINST ISRAEL
While most divinely ordained warfare was directed toward Israel’s enemies, God also used foreign nations to judge his sinful people. The initial defeat at Ai (Jos 7), the capture of the ark by the Philistines at the time of Eli (1 Sm 4), and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians (Lm 2) are examples.
The blessings and curses of Scripture are grounded in a worldview that understands the sovereign God to be the ultimate dispenser of each. God is the giver of blessing and ultimately the final judge who determines withdrawal or ban. He is the source of every good gift (Jms 1:17) and the one who gives power and strength to prosper (Dt 8:17).
OLD TESTAMENT
The sovereign God sometimes employs agents of blessing in his creation. The blessing extends to the nations through Abraham (Gn 12:3), to Jacob through Isaac (Gn 26–27), and to the people through the priests (Nm 6:24–26).
The theme of blessing/curse is used to structure Dt 27–28 and Lv 26 (cf. Jos 8:34) in the overall covenant format of these books. The object of this format is not symmetry or logical unity but fullness. From this perspective, the blessing/curse structure functions to enforce obedience for the purpose of ensuring a relationship. The blessing of Deuteronomy also includes the benefits of prosperity, power, and fertility. The curse, on the other hand, is the lack or withdrawal of benefits associated with the relationship.
The creation narratives are marked with the theme and terminology of blessing (Gn 1:22, 28; 2:3; cf. 5:2; 9:1). The objects of blessing in Gn 1:22, 28 (cf. 5:2; 9:1) are the living creatures and human beings created in the image of God. As the revelation progresses, the blessing of God is particularized in the lives of Noah (Gn 6–8), Abraham (Gn 12–25) and his descendants, and the nation of Israel and its leadership (Gn 26–50). In these contexts, the blessing is intended to engender offspring and to prosper recipients in material and physical ways (compare a similar NT emphasis in Ac 17:25; cf. Mt 5:45; 6:25–33; Ac 14:17).
The blessing of God is also extended to inanimate objects that enhance and prosper one’s quality of life. The seventh day of creation is the object of blessing (Gn 2:7; Ex 20:11), perhaps giving it a sense of well-being and health. Objects and activities of life such as baskets and kneading troughs (Dt 28:5), barns (Dt 28:8), and work (Jb 1:10; Ps 90:17) are blessed.
God promises to bless those who fear him (Ps 128:1). Blessing is designed for those who, out of a deep sense of awe of God’s character, love and trust him. The God-fearer confidently embraces God’s promises, obediently serves, and takes seriously God’s warnings. The blessings itemized in Ps 128 are comparable to those detailed in Dt 28 relating to productivity and fruitfulness (compare Ps 128:2 with Dt 28:12; Ps 128:3 with Dt 28:4, 11). The Deuteronomic concept of blessing and curse is questioned when God-fearers undergo a period of suffering or experience God’s apparent absence (e.g., Joseph, Job).
NEW TESTAMENT
In the NT, blessings are not exclusively spiritual. God gives both food and joy (Ac 14:17) and provides the necessities of life (Mt 6:25–33). The NT does connect blessing with Christ, and it focuses attention on the spiritual quality of the gift that originates from Christ himself and its intended benefit for spiritual individuals.
Regarding curse, the NT explains that Christ bore the curse of the law to free us from its deadening effect (Gl 3:10–13). Revelation 22:3 anticipates a time when the curse associated with sin will be completely removed and the blessing associated with creation will prevail. Paul invokes a curse for those who pervert or reject the gospel of God’s free grace (1 Co 16:22; Gl 1:8–9).
The Morality of the Conquest of Canaan
Some aspects of the story in Joshua can be a little disquieting for us. For example, God orders the Israelites to kill all of the Canaanites, every man, woman, and child. This can seem harsh to us, perhaps even unjust. What about the love and grace of God? There are several points to consider as we grapple with this problem. First of all, we need to place this story in its proper context within the Bible and to read the texts carefully. Note that the order to destroy all the inhabitants of a conquered city is not a universal order applying to every city the Israelites conquer, but it applies only to cities within the promised land, where the Israelites will settle.
Second, remember the Canaanite society Israel is destroying has been portrayed regularly throughout the Pentateuch as one that is especially corrupt and immoral. Genesis 19 (the Sodom and Gomorrah episode) represents Canaanite society as incredibly immoral. Leviticus 18 echoes this sentiment, connecting perverse sexual behavior to the Canaanites. In Gn 9:25, Noah proclaims a prophetic curse on the Canaanites, a prophecy that finds fulfillment in the conquest.
Third, we learn from Gn 15:16 that God is apparently offended by the sin of the Canaanites as early as the time of Abraham, but in his grace and perseverance he waits four hundred years before actually judging them. So the Pentateuch stresses that the Canaanites are so corrupt and immoral that they deserve judgment long before Joshua and the Israelites arrive. God delays that judgment, apparently giving the Canaanites time to repent. God then uses the Israelites to carry out his judgment on the Canaanite society, just as he used fire and brimstone to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Finally, do not miss the huge irony of this discussion. In Joshua, a book about annihilating the Canaanites, the first major story is about Rahab, a Canaanite who is not destroyed but rather is included in Israel, becoming a prominent and important woman in the lineage of David (and Jesus!). This is an important episode in Joshua. It is placed prominently at the beginning of the book, and a lot of text is devoted to the Rahab episode. Is this story presented as a pattern? Rahab’s story (combined with the story of Achan, Jos 7) qualifies the annihilation command, underscoring that it is those who trust in the Lord who will live, and it is those who do not trust in him who will die. Likewise, just as a woman (Rahab) and her family are spared and included into Israel in Jos 2–6, so in Jos 9 an entire city (Gibeon) dodges destruction. So the pattern of deliverance set by the individual Canaanite Rahab is repeated by an entire Canaanite city.
Some have questioned the propriety of the spies’ promise to Rahab in light of the Lord’s clear commands in Dt 7:1–3; 20:16–17 to destroy without mercy all the local population in the land Israel was to take possession of. To these interpreters, the spies’ promise to Rahab would amount to an act of disobedience. However, a strong case can be made that the spies do not do anything inappropriate.
First, there is no rebuke from Joshua when the spies return to camp and report what happened (Jos 2:23). In fact, Joshua makes sure the spies’ promise to Rahab is honored when the Israelites finally take Jericho (cf. Jos 6:17, 22–25).
Second, in spite of the spies’ promise, the Lord still brings about a miraculous victory over Jericho (cf. Jos 6:1–21). This suggests that the promise to Rahab is deemed acceptable to the Lord (cf. Achan’s sin and Israel’s subsequent defeat at Ai in Jos 7:1–15).
Third, the Lord’s earlier commands for Israel to totally destroy the local population both came with the explicit justification that otherwise the local population would lead Israel astray with their idolatry (Dt 7:4; 20:18). But in the case of Rahab, she has already placed her faith in the Lord and backed it up by hiding the spies from her own people. Her turning to the Lord thus effectively eliminates the threat of her turning Israel away from the Lord and, hence, the reason not to show mercy. The fact that Rahab and her family later become part of the covenant community (cf. Jos 6:25; Mt 1:5) only proves the genuineness of her faith.
Fourth, the spies’ promise of kindness (hesed) is in fact in line with the unspoken rules of the giving and receiving of hesed between individuals in the OT. When applied to dealings between human beings, the predominant idea behind hesed is the appropriate demonstration of benevolence demanded by specific underlying relationships. Thus, a request or demonstration of hesed is often based on previous hesed received (Gn 21:23; 1 Sm 15:6). In fact, the receipt of hesed without reciprocating is often considered an act of betrayal (Jdg 8:23; 2 Ch 24:22). In Rahab’s case, therefore, not only has she already taken the initiative to show hesed by hiding the spies, her request of hesed is also based on the hesed she has already shown (Jos 2:12). The spies will thus be acting dishonorably if they refuse to return the hesed (Jos 2:14).
Finally, the positive portrayals of Rahab in two NT books that seem to address audiences with Jewish background also imply a high regard for Rahab within Jewish and early Christian traditions (cf. Heb 11:31; Jms 2:25), thus vindicating the decision to spare her and her family.
| Rahab (Jos 2) | Achan (Jos 7) |
| A Canaanite woman who fears the Lord and obeys indirect revelation from the Lord | An Israelite man who doesn’t fear the Lord and disobeys direct revelation from the Lord |
| A prostitute (not respectable) | Respectable |
| She hides the spies from the king, on the roof of her house; her house survives. | He hides the loot from Joshua and the Lord, in the ground under his tent; his tent perishes. |
| Her nation (Jericho) perishes. | His nation (Israel) prospers. |
| The cattle, sheep, and donkeys of her city (Jericho) perish. | His cattle, sheep, and donkeys perish, like those in Jericho. |
| She should have perished, but she and her family survive—like the Israelites. | He should have survived, but he and his family perish—like the Canaanites. |
The Roles of Women in the Old Testament
In the Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what is expected in an ancient Near Eastern context. Hagar is the only woman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gives a name to a deity (Gn 16:13). In Jdg 4:4, Deborah the prophetess is “judging” Israel. Even as judge, however, she does not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera; Barak does. But Barak is unwilling to undertake this mission unless Deborah goes with him (Jdg 4:8). Thus, God ensures that the prestige of killing Sisera goes to a woman, Jael (Jdg 4:9, 21). Another prominent woman is Huldah, to whom the priests turn for guidance when the law is rediscovered (2 Kg 22:14). Jezebel (1 Kg 16–21) and Athaliah (2 Kg 11) are among the queens or queen mothers with great power and influence during the monarchic period, although they are not positive figures.
Many biblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh is undermined by two midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Ex 1:15–21). Ruth the Moabitess gives her name to the book that recounts her trek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ru 1:16–17). Esther too is a courageous woman whose book bears her name, and she humbly uses her status as queen to save her people. Women also play an important role as matriarchs in the book of Genesis (Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel) and as mothers of significant figures, especially through miraculous or foretold births (e.g., the mother of Samson in Jdg 13; Hannah in 1 Sm 1–2).
Scripture at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Eve hands the fruit to Adam (Gn 3:6). Delilah proves to be the downfall of Samson (Jdg 16). Bathsheba is a temptation to David, and this begins a series of events that mar his career. Solomon loves many foreign women, who turn him to worship their gods. After the exile, the Israelites are admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreign wives lest history repeat itself (Neh 13:26).
The book of Proverbs uses the symbolism of two women—Woman Folly (Pr 9:13–18) and Woman Wisdom (Pr 1:20–33)—to separate humankind into two groups. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-blood temptation of the immoral woman (Pr 7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdom has her counterpart at the end of the book in the detailed description of the woman of virtue (Pr 31:10–31). There, the industrious woman who fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—the highest blessing of the wise.
The Minor Judges versus the Major Judges
Tola and Jair in Jdg 10:1–5, as well as Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon in Jdg 12:8–15, are commonly referred to as minor judges because of their shorter accounts. Because these accounts contain no reports of military exploits against foreign enemies but only odd domestic details, some see the so-called minor judges as a different kind of judge from the so-called major judges. Thus, while the major judges are military leaders who fight foreign oppressors, the minor judges are thought to be administrators during times of peace. But such a distinction may not be necessary or accurate.
First, there are hints that some of the minor judges may also have played military roles. Tola, for example, is said in Jdg 10:1 to have arisen to “deliver” Israel; the Hebrew word is used nineteen times out of twenty in the book to speak of deliverance from foreign enemies (cf. Jdg 2:16, 18; 3:9 [x2], 15, 31; 6:14–15, 36–37; 7:2, 7; 8:22; 10:12–14; 12:2–3; 13:5). Jair too may have played a military role, as other traditions about him in Nm 32:41 and Dt 3:14 depict him also as a military hero.
Second, the distinctive framework used for the minor judges that provides the exact duration of office (as opposed to forty or eighty years of rest for the land for most of the major judges) and specifies the place of burial is also used for Jephthah (Jdg 12:7). This suggests that in the earliest tradition, Jephthah may have been grouped together with the minor judges. If so, the fact that Jephthah was also a deliverer judge means that one cannot rule out the possibility that the other minor judges also had military exploits against foreign oppressors. It would thus be difficult to maintain a functional difference between the major and minor judges.
Third, at the end of the Gideon narrative, the information about his wives and children, as well as his place of burial (Jdg 8:30–32), is also not dissimilar to the information given for some of the minor judges, such as Jair (Jdg 10:4), Ibzan (Jdg 12:9), and Abdon (Jdg 12:14). This again shows that the difference between the major and minor judges may not be that significant, and the brevity of the accounts of the minor judges may only be due either to some of the traditions about them having been lost or to the fact that their exploits did not fit the rhetorical purpose of the book’s author.
Samson as a Microcosm of Israel
Samson’s life has often been seen as a microcosmic reflection of Israel itself, as the two share much in common (see table). If these narratives were written before the nation’s fall, perhaps Samson’s end is meant to serve as a warning for Israel before she travels down a similar path. Unfortunately that is a warning Israel does not heed.
| Samson | Israel |
| Set apart by God before birth | Chosen through Abraham even before becoming a nation |
| Cannot resist the lure of foreign women | Cannot resist the lure of foreign gods |
| Foreign women bring nothing but trouble, but he keeps returning for more | Foreign gods bring nothing but trouble (Jdg 2:11–15; 3:7–8, 12–14; 4:1–2; 6:1–5; 10:6–9; 13:1), but Israel keeps returning for more |
| When Samson cries out to the Lord in distress, the Lord delivers (Jdg 15:18; 16:28) | When Israel cries out to the Lord in distress, the Lord delivers (Jdg 3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:6; 10:10) |
| When Samson has been enticed once too often, the Lord, the source of Samson’s strength, leaves him (Jdg 16:19) | The Lord, the source of Israel’s strength, will eventually also leave her and will no longer deliver his people (cf. 2 Kg 17:1–23; 24:20–25:21; 2 Ch 36:14–21; Ezk 8:1–11:25) |
Where Should the Book of Ruth Be Placed?
In the Christian canon, the book of Ruth is located between Judges and 1–2 Samuel, thus providing a transition between them. The book of Ruth introduces David, who will be the solution to the terrible situation in Judges, as revealed in the story of 1–2 Samuel. In the Hebrew canon, however, Ruth is located right after Proverbs. Proverbs 31 describes a “woman”/“wife” (the Hebrew word is the same) of noble character. In Ru 3:11 Boaz tells Ruth that everyone knows she is a “woman of noble character,” using the same Hebrew phrase as Pr 31:10. So in the Hebrew canon, Pr 31:10 asks, “Who can find a wife of noble character?” and as one turns the page, there is Ruth, the woman/wife of noble character.
| Battle Ax | The battle ax was an adaptation of the household ax, whose metal head assumed a variety of shapes, from duckbill to crescent to rectangle. The handle of this short-range weapon acted like a lever, increasing the force with which the sharpened edge could be driven into an enemy soldier. |
|
| Mace | The mace was an adaptation of the battle ax. The handle terminated in a round stone or metal ball, sometimes with spikes. It also took advantage of the principle of the lever but instead of cutting was meant to break bones. |
|
| Sword | Prior to the time of the judges in Israel, the sword of the Bible was most likely the sickle sword. The handle of the sickle sword terminated in a curved blade whose outer edge was sharpened. As the Iron Age dawned, bronze gave way to iron, and the sickle sword gave way to the straight sword. The straight sword had a shorter handle and a longer blade sharpened on both sides. In time, a raised rib was added down the middle of the blade to strengthen it. |
|
| Dagger | The dagger was similar in design to the straight sword but shorter in length, making it easier to conceal and more agile than the longer sword, so that it might be more effective in a close-quarter fight. |  |
| Spear | The spear was composed of a wood shaft whose length corresponded to the height of the soldier who used it. The wood shaft terminated in a metal point that was sharpened on both sides. It was primarily designed as a thrusting weapon rather than a weapon that was thrown. |
|
| Javelin | The javelin looked like the spear but was made to be lighter and carried a more streamlined head. It was the medium-range weapon that was meant to be thrown. Experiments from the time of Napoleon indicated an effective range of about 65 feet; however, with an added looped cord, the range increased to 260 feet. |  |
| Bow and Arrow | The bow and arrow was a long-range weapon. At first the bow was made from a single piece of bent wood. But in time this simple bow was replaced by the composite bow. In both cases, harnessing the energy of the rebounding wood bow when the string was released could extend the distance the arrow traveled. With the composite bow, the effective range of this weapon extended to 200 yards. Archers were grouped so that they could release a hail of arrows. |  |
| Sling | The sling and slingshot are not the same thing. The biblical sling consisted of two cords of leather or wool attached to a pouch into which the projectile was placed. Once the clay, wood, or stone projectile was loaded, the slinger would grasp the free ends of the two cords and rotate the weapon either overhead or at the side. After two or three rotations, one of the cords would be released, allowing the projectile to exit the pocket at speeds well over 100 miles per hour. This high-speed projectile was effective at more than 200 yards. |
|
In the Hebrew text that most English Bibles are based on, the height of Goliath in 1 Sm 17:4 is “six cubits and a span” (see the CSB footnote). In the ancient world, a cubit was about eighteen inches, and a span was about nine inches. Thus Goliath would be about nine feet, nine inches tall. This is the way he has usually been portrayed in Christian tradition.
The oldest Hebrew manuscript that has “six cubits and a span” dates to AD 935. Surprisingly, in a scroll of Samuel found with the Dead Sea Scrolls (from ca. 50 BC), the height of Goliath is given as “four cubits and a span,” or only about six feet, nine inches. Likewise, manuscripts of the Septuagint (the early translation of the OT into Greek) that date to the fourth and fifth centuries AD also list the height of Goliath as “four cubits and a span.” In recent years, more and more scholars have acknowledged that the earlier manuscripts might contain a reading that is more likely to be original; thus perhaps Goliath is only six feet, nine inches. However, most English Bible translations still follow the traditional reading and list Goliath as six cubits and a span, or as “nine feet, nine inches.”
Nothing else in the text requires Goliath to be nine feet, nine inches. He is never actually called a giant in the Bible. His armor (described in 1 Sm 17:5–7) is not something that a big, strong, six-foot-nine man could not carry, and besides, being taller does not imply being stronger.
How would the shorter height of Goliath affect our understanding of the story? It is important to note that in the ancient world, people in general were quite a bit shorter than they are now. At this time in Palestine (about 1000 BC) the average height of men was only about five feet, two inches. So at six feet, nine inches Goliath would still be an unusually large man. But remember that King Saul is a head taller than anyone in Israel (1 Sm 9:2). So Saul is probably six-foot-five or so, not much shorter than Goliath. Saul also has armor. So Saul is the likely candidate who should go forward and fight against Goliath. When Saul counsels David in 1 Sm 17:33, Saul does not seem concerned with Goliath’s size but rather is concerned with Goliath’s years of training and experience.
Regardless of Goliath’s exact height, he is clearly tall and strong, and intimidating enough to strike fear in the hearts of the Israelites—all except for a youth named David.
Completing the Conquest of Canaan
The Israelite conquest of the promised land is narrated in Numbers through 2 Samuel, although the main events of the conquest are described in Joshua and Judges. The background for the Canaanite conquest is anticipated in God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants will become a mighty nation (Gn 12:1–3; see also Gn 15:16). The conquest begins with defeat of the Midianites on the eastern side of the Jordan River under the leadership of Moses (Nm 31–32). After Moses’s death, Joshua leads the Israelites across the Jordan River, and they begin to take the land, starting with Jericho (Jos 1–7). After some key victories, the land is then allotted to the Israelite tribes; the tribal boundaries are described in Jos 14–22, although these boundaries may describe territorial stake that required further warfare in order to be obtained, rather than land already conquered. The struggle clearly is not over by the time of Joshua’s death, since the book of Judges relates more-concentrated battles, sometimes in offensive attacks and other times as defensive battles to preserve land control.
The conquest is finally completed under David’s kingship (2 Sm 1–8). After Saul’s death, a short and violent confrontation takes place between Israelite forces still loyal to Saul’s family and those loyal to David. Political power is consolidated with a few key assassinations, rather than through full-fledged war, orchestrated by David’s men. As a result, David, with the full support of the army (both the forces previously loyal to Saul and his own), takes the city of Jerusalem and then finally conquers the areas of the Philistines, the Ammonites, and the Moabites (areas that Saul had been unable to subdue). Thus, large-scale fighting for territory ends during David’s reign. The largest reaches of David’s united kingdom fairly closely reflect the extent of the allotment to the tribes first described in Joshua, as Abraham’s descendants finally become the mighty nation that God has promised.
How Do We Determine the Dates for the Events in the Old Testament?
Obviously the people in the ancient world did not use modern calendars and did not date events as we do now (AD or BC). In the histories and chronologies of the ancient Near East (including the OT) most events were dated by relating them to the time that a certain king began ruling. For instance, we find statements like “in the fifth year of Israel’s King Joram son of Ahab” (2 Kg 8:16) or “in the first year of King Cyrus of Persia” (Ezr 1:1). But how do scholars know what year it was when Joram became king of Israel or Cyrus became king of Persia?
The Assyrians have inadvertently helped us out. There is an ancient document called the Assyrian King List that lists the kings in chronological order. The scribes who produced this document also assigned a unique name to each consecutive year, called “eponyms.” The Assyrians used these eponyms to date the year of each king’s accession to the throne in the King List. Assyrian scribes dated other events in Assyrian history with these eponyms as well. Fortunately, an Assyrian scribe mentioned that a solar eclipse occurred during one of these years. Modern astronomers can calculate exactly when that solar eclipse occurred (June 15, 763 BC). Using that firm date, scholars can then use the eponym list and the Assyrian King List to determine the accurate dates for most of Assyrian history. The Babylonians have king lists as well, and since these overlap with the Assyrian King List, scholars can also accurately date the kings and events of Babylonian history.
Several events in 1–2 Kings involve the Assyrians or the Babylonians and thus can be dated fairly accurately based on the correlations with the known dates of Assyrian and Babylonian history. Once a few firm dates are known in 1–2 Kings, then the dates for just about all of the events in 1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles can be determined, since the Israelite and Judahite kings are linked together by accession to the throne and length of their reign (see the timeline that appears in 1 Kings). This also allows scholars to determine the dates for many of the events in the prophetic books. Thus we are fairly confident of the biblical dates from the time of Saul and David down to the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.
Solomon and the Regulations of the King in Deuteronomy 17
Despite all the sparkle of Solomon’s reign, his success and wealth cannot be properly understood apart from Dt 17:16–17, the so-called regulations of the king:
[The king] must not acquire many horses for himself or send the people back to Egypt to acquire many horses, for the LORD has told you, “You are never to go back that way again.” He must not acquire many wives for himself so that his heart won’t go astray. He must not acquire very large amounts of silver and gold for himself.
God has given assurance in 1 Kg 3 that Solomon will be rich, and it is impossible to deny that reality in the latter stages of 1 Kg 10. Just like the queen of Sheba (10:9), a host of people would be impressed by such riches and could well point to such prosperity as sure signs of God’s blessing and favor. In just a few short years the nation of Israel has achieved a completely new position as a competitor on the worldwide stage. However, Solomon’s enormous wealth has the elements of a test: How will the king handle these resources? Will these riches be used faithfully, or—as in the parable of the soils in Mk 4—will they prove to be a snare?
Deuteronomy 17 advises against multiplying gold because of the sinister potential that causes so many to wander astray. That same text further proscribes the accumulation of horses (cf. Solomon’s 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen in 1 Kg 4:26; 10:26–29). Finally, Dt 17 also warns against the king’s multiplying of wives, a subject reserved for the final chapter on Solomon’s reign (1 Kg 11:1–8). Solomon fails the test on all three counts, and eventually it leads to his downfall (1 Kg 11:9–40).
The heartland of the Assyrian Empire was located in northern Mesopotamia, near the modern city of Mosul in northern Iraq. From there, the Assyrians developed an empire that at times reached southeast as far as the Persian Gulf and southwest through the Fertile Crescent as far as Egypt. The Assyrians’ period of greatest power was approximately 911–609 BC, when they created an empire larger than any in the Near East up to that time.
In the early part of this period (911–745 BC), the Assyrians generally defended their empire against outside threats and took plunder and prisoners whenever they could. Sometimes their neighbors felt their presence strongly, as in the battle involving Ahab of Israel (1 Kg 22). At other times they didn’t. Both Jeroboam II of Israel (2 Kg 14:23–29) and Uzziah of Judah (2 Ch 26) were able to expand their territory without interference from the Assyrians.
Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC), however, also known as Pul, established a different pattern that became typical of subsequent Assyrian kings. During his reign, the large and powerful Assyrian army campaigned annually, extending the territory under the empire’s control and putting down any rebellion that might flare up. Such continual warfare, waged either through direct combat or siege, was costly in terms of time and resources. Therefore, the Assyrians frequently attempted to persuade those resisting them to submit without a fight. For example, they might surround a walled city and have one of their officers call out to the city’s inhabitants, urging them to end their resistance with the promise of lenient treatment (cf. 2 Kg 18). If this failed, they would attack or lay siege, depending on the situation. After defeating a city, the Assyrians would often cruelly mutilate many of the captured defenders, with flaying and impaling among their favorite techniques. Such tactics earned them a reputation for viciousness, often intimidating the other peoples of the ancient Near East.
Nevertheless, the peoples subjugated by the Assyrians did rebel from time to time. The northern kingdom of Israel rebelled several times. The Assyrians ultimately punished them by taking the population into exile in 722 BC, resettling some of them in cities in the central portion of the empire, and others farther east in the cities of Media (2 Kg 17). Forcing large groups of conquered people to move far away from their homes made it harder for such people to organize rebellion. It also provided labor for the cultivation of farmland and/or for major building projects in Assyrian cities such as Asshur, Nineveh, Calah, and Arbela.
But further rebellions, along with strife among the Assyrian elite, weakened the empire to the point where the Babylonians and Medes were able to capture Nineveh, the capital city, in 612 BC (see Nahum). By 609 BC the Babylonians had taken control of the empire once ruled by Assyria.
The region of Babylonia is referred to often in the Bible. It appears first in Gn 10:10, although there and in a few other places it is called the land of Shinar. It is also sometimes called the land of the Chaldeans. In general, its geographic area extended from the vicinity of present-day Baghdad to the Persian Gulf, although from 605 to 539 BC the Babylonian Empire extended throughout most of the ancient Near East.
Even when Babylonians were not dominating the area politically, Babylonian ideas were very influential, and in a number of cases it seems that biblical authors were intentionally correcting some of these notions. For example, the account of creation in Gn 1–2 seems to be presented partly as a corrective to the creation stories popular in Babylonia.
The role the Babylonian Empire would play in the latter parts of the Old Testament was foretold by the prophet Isaiah. When King Hezekiah of Judah (ruled 715–686 BC) received envoys from Babylon, he showed them all the valuables in his storehouses. After the envoys left, Isaiah prophesied that all the king’s wealth, as well as Hezekiah’s own descendants, would one day be taken away to Babylon (2 Kg 20:12–19).
This prophecy came true a century later. About eight years after the Babylonian king Nabopolassar defeated the Assyrians and took control of their empire, his son Nebuchadnezzar forced Judah to begin paying tribute to the new Babylonian Empire (597 BC). Eventually, in 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city of Jerusalem, including the temple that Solomon had built, and took most of the prominent citizens into captivity, including those of the royal family who were not killed (2 Kg 24–25; 2 Ch 36:6–21). The books of Ezekiel and Daniel each center on one of these Judean exiles, true prophets who lived as exiles in Babylonia.
The prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk foresaw that the coming Babylonian onslaught was part of God’s judgment on Judah for unfaithfulness to his covenant. At the same time, these prophets, as well as Isaiah, made clear that the Babylonians were idolatrous and were in many ways regarded as the Lord’s enemies. This is also how Babylon appears in Dn 1–5. Each chapter features a power struggle of some kind between the Lord and the Babylonian king.
Under Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonia reached the height of its wealth and power. He carried out an impressive building program in his capital city of Babylon, funded largely by the tribute received from the subjugated peoples of his empire. Yet, only twenty-three years after his death, Babylon had become so weak that the Persians were able to capture the capital quite easily (539 BC) and assume control of the empire.
The reappearance of “Babylon” as the name of the prostitute in Rv 17–18 seems connected to the pride, idolatry, greed, and ruthlessness characteristic of Babylon in the OT.
A biblical genealogy is a listing of names showing the interrelationships of individuals, clans, or nations. They are found mainly, though not exclusively, in the Pentateuch, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. In the NT, genealogies also appear in Mt 1 and Lk 3. The arrangement of names in such listings is most often forward in time, from ancestor to descendant (e.g., Ru 4:18–22, tracing a family line down to David), and this is the genealogy proper. At other times, names are listed in the opposite direction, backward in time, from the individual to ancestor (e.g., Ezr 7:1–5, where Ezra’s ancestry is traced back to Aaron “the chief priest”; see also Lk 3:23–38), and this is, strictly speaking, a pedigree. The unusually lengthy pedigree (even by biblical standards) of Ezra “the priest” is an effective way to highlight his temple interest when he is first introduced to the reader. The pedigree of 1 Ch 6:33–47 shows the impeccable Levitical credentials of Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, who serve before the ark of the covenant under the leadership of David.
Lineage is almost invariably traced through the male line. Most often in biblical narrative an individual is supplied only with a patronym (e.g., “Isaiah son of Amoz” [Is 1:1]), or sometimes three generations are specified (e.g., “Bezalel son of Uri, son of Hur” [Ex 35:30]). In lists, the father-son relation can be broader than immediate descent and may refer to remote ancestors (e.g., Ezr 5:1; cf. Zch 1:1). Because it is rare for females to be mentioned in biblical genealogies, where they are there is special significance—for example, Sarai in Gn 11:29; Rebekah in Gn 22:23; the daughters of Zelophehad in Nm 26:33; and the five women in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt 1).
Genealogical information is always supplied for a reason. Genealogies are used for a variety of purposes in ancient literature. They define sociological functions (identifying military, priestly, and royal personnel), highlight relationships among various groups of people (relationships with the broader world and among various tribes), initiate the narrative plot by using people’s names to summarize earlier phases of the story, and foreshadow key theological themes and literary structures used later in the work.
Genealogies are also an important feature of biblical storytelling. When a biblical genealogy is supplied, it has a narrative role. It contributes something essential to the presentation of the biblical writer. For example, 1 Ch 1 is not a bare listing of names but rather, beginning with Adam, provides a world context for the history of Israel that follows; and 1 Ch 2–9 emphasizes the twelve-tribal structure of God’s people, thus preventing the misapprehension that Chronicles is just a history of the southern kingdom of Judah.
There is often an element of schema in biblical genealogies (e.g., the limitation of generations to 10). Genesis 5 displays the convention of the seventh generation, which is deemed worthy of special attention (Enoch). There is also the Bible’s delight in multiples of seven—for example, the seventy nations in Gn 10, the 3 x 14 generational schema in Mt 1, and the seventy members in the pedigree of Christ in Lk 3:23–38. Hence, none of these genealogies should be understood as comprehensive in scope; rather, they are highly selective and stylized. Their purpose is to support and underscore the writer’s theological message.
Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church have been formed.
The living God is the sole object of legitimate worship. A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps 90:1; 1 Tm 1:17), unique in every way (Is 44:8); he is God alone (Dt 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Ex 3:14; Dt 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps 100).
God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps 95:6; Rm 1:25; Rv 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the Redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Ex 15:1–18) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rv 14:3).
Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss 45:11; 98:6). It is the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Mt 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1 Tm 6:15; Rv 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rv 15:3–4).
Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2 Kg 17:35, 38; cf. Dt 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.
Although the form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essential elements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarily lead the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Dt 17:18–20) and of the prophet (Dt 18:14–22) have worship implications and responsibilities. Worship in both Testaments has both corporate and individual aspects.
OT worship is organized around sacred places such as designated locations (Gn 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Ex 29:42), and the temple (1 Kg 8; cf. Rv 21–22). In addition, there are sacred times in the calendar for celebration of the appointed feasts (Lv 23). The sacred actions of worship for the nation involve various offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–5). Ritual celebration may include the singing of psalms and the use of instruments (1 Ch 16:4–42). The routine of worship is intended to manifest a love for God and for the covenant community (Dt 6:1–5; Mal 2:10). The prophets challenge Israel to have a heart for God and to consider the emptiness of their worship routine (Is 1:11).
The form of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as in the OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practice of NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is the final and sufficient work of Christ (Heb 9–10). Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Sacrifice involves the offering of oneself (Rm 12:1–2) along with spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1 Pt 2:4–5). Worship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (Jn 4:20–24), distinguished by the word of God, preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. Worship also includes the regular celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Ac 2:42–47).
The temple played an important role in the social, religious, and political life of ancient Israel. It was the dwelling place of Yahweh and the domain of the religious leaders, priests, and Levites. It also represented the relationship/covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Various kings used the temple for their political maneuvering and attempts to shift the religious worship of the nation. The temple was the visible presence of God and embodied the political and religious aspirations of the people.
The Jerusalem temple was originally built by Solomon in 953 BC and was destroyed by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC. After the exile, the temple was rebuilt and then rededicated by Zerubbabel in 515 BC. Herod the Great significantly expanded and changed the temple, but it was eventually destroyed by the Romans under the direction of Titus in AD 70.
The Solomonic temple ushered in a new period of religious activity among the ancient Israelites. Previously, Israel had worshiped at various shrines and sanctuaries, and its central religious practice was associated with the tabernacle. The building project was initiated under David, who made Jerusalem the religious center when he brought the holy ark, the visible symbol of God’s presence, to Jerusalem (2 Sm 5–6).
The temple is located on the highest point of a ridge where the OT city of Jerusalem is located (Jebusite city, later the city of David). The land was originally a threshing floor, purchased from Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sm 24:18–25; Ornan in 1 Ch 21:15–30; 2 Ch 3:1). Later tradition associates the hill where David built an altar with the location where earlier Abraham built an altar to sacrifice Isaac (Mount Moriah; see 2 Ch 3:1).
The construction of Solomon’s temple lasted for seven years. The king obtained building materials, specifically cedar from Lebanon (2 Ch 2:3–10), and construction and design expertise from Phoenician artisans (1 Kg 7:13–14, 45). There are two accounts for the construction and dedication of the first temple (1 Kg 6–8; 2 Ch 3–7).
From Solomon to Zedekiah, the temple was used for political and religious power shifts. Kings of Israel raided the temple treasury to pay off invaders, closed the temple, or placed idols in the temple in periods of apostasy. During periods of reform they repaired and rebuilt the temple and its furnishings. Eventually the temple was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC (2 Ch 36).
Solomon’s temple was rebuilt by the Jews who returned from exile under the decree of the Persian king Darius (Ezr 6:1–5). The temple was built under the direction of the governor Zerubbabel (Ezr 6:13–18) and was dedicated in 515 BC. During the Hasomonean period (152–37 BC) a platform and a fortress were constructed. Not much is known about the temple during this period. It would be greatly eclipsed by the work of Herod the Great.
Herod invested heavily in building projects throughout his kingdom. John 2:20 indicates that thus far it had taken forty-six years (beyond Herod’s life) to build Herod’s temple complex. Herod could not alter the dimensions of the temple, but he was able to make additions to the outside, alter its outer furnishings, build a second story above the temple, and construct several courtyards and various buildings associated with them. In keeping with the earlier tripartite levels of holiness, these additional temple buildings and courtyards retained the same linear degree of holiness and exclusion. Herod’s temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 during the Jewish revolt.
From as early as the Babylonian period, there was hope of a future temple. Ezekiel’s vision includes a futuristic temple surrounded by a massive court (Ezk 40:1–47:12). Some aspects of Ezekiel’s vision are repeated in the vision of the new Jerusalem in Rv 21–22, although in John’s vision there is no temple, because God and the Lamb are the temple (Rv 21:22). Today many Christians and Jews look to a future rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
The dislocation of a people group from its homeland. In the Bible, “the exile” usually refers to two events in Israel’s history: the Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom in 722 BC, and the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom around 586 BC.
Although earlier Assyrian kings had deported the elite members of conquered populations, it was Tiglath-pileser III who formalized the procedure as a generalized policy: any people groups that were conquered or subdued after they had rebelled were subjected to exile, and other conquered peoples were resettled in their place. This process was designed to prevent the reorganization of and rebellion by groups that had been subjugated.
The eventual Assyrian exile of the northern kingdom of Israel was set in motion when King Pekah of Israel joined with King Rezin of Damascus to revolt against their Assyrian overlords. Tiglath-pileser responded quickly and brutally, overrunning the northern kingdom in his campaign against Syria and Palestine (734–732 BC). Only a portion of Ephraim and western Manasseh remained. After Pekah’s successor, Hoshea, also rebelled, the Assyrians conquered Samaria (722 BC) and exiled much of the Israelite population in Upper Mesopotamia. According to the biblical account (2 Kg 15–17), peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim were resettled in Samaria. The ten northern tribes eventually were assimilated into the local populations and were never reconstituted.
More frequently, “the exile” refers to the Babylonian exile of the southern kingdom in the sixth century BC. With the fall of the Assyrian capital of Nineveh in 612 BC, the Babylonians became the preeminent power. In 601 BC, King Jehoiakim rebelled in order to establish Judah’s independence (2 Kg 24). The Babylonians marched on Judah, and in 597 BC Jerusalem surrendered. The king, government officials, and leading citizens were taken to Babylon, and a vassal king was installed. Further rebellions eventually led to the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, and the exile of even more of the population in 586 BC.
The Babylonians’ policy of exile differed from that of the Assyrians in two important respects. First, the Babylonians did not resettle other peoples in Judah. Second, they did not scatter the exiled peoples among other populations; rather, the Judahites were resettled in Babylon in their own community. This resulted in the preservation of community identity along with theological traditions and texts.
When the Persian king Cyrus conquered the Median Empire in 550 BC, he treated the new subjects quite well compared to Babylonian policies. Cyrus made a habit of restoring exiled peoples to their homelands and permitted the reconstruction of local shrines. The shrewd statesman understood well that grateful subjects were more likely to be obedient subjects.
In 539 BC, Cyrus conquered Babylon, and in the wake of this victory, he authorized the return of exiled Jews and authorized the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 1:2–4; 5:13–17). With the return from Babylon, the period of the exile technically came to an end. However, the Jews living in the late sixth century and later concluded that the exile had not fully ended. The hopes surrounding the Davidic heir Zerubbabel had waned by 515 BC, and the Jews still found themselves under the foreign rule of the Persians. Because the pictures of restoration in Isaiah and Ezekiel had not yet been realized, in a certain sense Israel was still in “exile” or slavery (cf. Ezr 9:7–8). Thus, throughout the Second Temple period many Jews considered the exile to have continued in a theological way.
This “theological exile” is the background to many statements of restoration in the Gospels. When Jesus calls twelve disciples who will institute the kingdom by driving out demons, curing illnesses, and ruling over the twelve tribes, he is implying that he has come to restore Israel from exile, for both the ten northern tribes and the two southern tribes (see Mt 10:1; Lk 6:13; 22:28–30).
When Cyrus II took control of the city of Babylon in 539 BC, the Babylonian Empire passed into the hands of the Persians. In many ways the Persians continued the practices of their predecessors, the Assyrians and Babylonians. They expanded their empire until it stretched from India to Greece, and they required their subjects to pay high taxes. Even the practice of allowing some of their exiled subjects to return to their homeland, which contributed to Cyrus’s fame, had been used by the Assyrians and Babylonians before him.
The Persian kings were committed to doing anything that looked as though it would strengthen their power. For example, they wanted their subjects to believe that Persian rule was divinely appointed. In ancient times, whoever rebuilt a destroyed temple was thereby claiming to have been chosen by the god of that temple to rule over the people who worshiped that god. Cyrus does this in 2 Ch 36 / Ezr 1. His aim is to assert that the Lord God of Israel has chosen him to rule over the Jews. Darius also takes similar action (Ezr 6). In addition, the strengthening of outlying areas was always an important military strategy, which is probably why Artaxerxes decides to allow Nehemiah to rebuild the walls around Jerusalem (Neh 2). Of course, the kings were always on the lookout for individuals who could contribute to Persian well-being and increase the security of Persia. These motives play out in Dn 6 and the book of Esther.
In contrast to the actions of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings recorded in the OT, which usually bring hardship and destruction to Israel or Judah, the actions of the Persian kings usually seem to help them. This may give the impression that the biblical writers viewed the Persian monarchs as benevolent and were perhaps even content to remain under their rule. The actions of these kings recorded in the Bible, however, were actually part of their attempt to consolidate political power and gain favor with their subjects. The Israelites were not the only people who benefited from their policies, and most of the Persian subjects understood their emperors’ aims. In fact, it was not unusual for the kinds of favorable treatment extended to the Israelites and others to be reversed suddenly if the Persian king thought that such a course would be to his advantage. Therefore, the writers of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Isaiah, and Daniel did not intend to portray the Persian kings as sincere worshipers of the Lord or as being especially friendly toward Israel, nor did they expect their readers to get such an impression. Rather, they marveled at how the sovereign Lord used the political strategies of these powerful kings to bring about the promised restoration of his people from exile.
Who Was Living in the Land When the Jews Returned from Exile?
When the Jewish exiles return from Babylon to “settle in their towns” (Ezr 2:70) and rebuild the temple and walls of Jerusalem, the land is not empty of inhabitants. Even before they build the altar upon their return, the Jews fear “the surrounding peoples” (Ezr 3:3). These are persons mostly of foreign descent (e.g., those from Samaria, Ammon, Ashdod, Edom, and Moab). The “surrounding peoples” are mentioned in negative terms throughout Ezra-Nehemiah, especially in the context of intermarriage with foreign wives.
The most intense opposition to the rebuilding of the temple comes from Samaria, just north of Judah (Ezr 4:17; cf. Neh 4:2). These neighbors might be offering sacrifices to Yahweh, but they also worship other gods (2 Kg 17:33). They are a mixed people. Some Jews remained in the northern kingdom when the majority went into captivity to Assyria in 721 BC, and they mixed with other captive peoples whom the Assyrian king Esar-haddon (681–669 BC; Ezr 4:2) had moved there. The Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (669–633 BC) also brought other captive peoples to Samaria (Ezr 4:10). These mixed people are the ancestors of the Samaritans mentioned in the NT.
The people already living in the land when the exiles return (Ezr 4:4, 6) therefore include mixed Jews, whose ancestors intermarried with people brought in by the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kg 17:24–25), and Jews in Judah or nearby lands whose faith has become diluted with local religious beliefs. Because the returned exiles are concerned to maintain their purity, the people already living in the land are considered a threat to their purity and to their dedication to serve God and restore Jerusalem.
Nehemiah, Example of a Godly Leader
Although Ezra-Nehemiah emphasizes the role of all the people, certainly Nehemiah serves as a marvelous example of godly leadership. God used him to lead and consolidate the people in a critical time of their history.
Nehemiah is an example in his relationship with God. His call to special service was not spectacular, but as he prayed for his people, far away in Jerusalem, he was sensitive to God’s voice calling him (Neh 1). He was a man completely committed to God, willing to humbly sacrifice himself for the Lord and for his people. He was a man of faith who constantly called on God and recognized God’s powerful hand in all he did. He had a profound understanding of God’s Word (Neh 1:8) and was a man of prayer. These qualities are just as essential for those called to administrative tasks as for pastors and teachers.
Nehemiah combined prayer and careful planning in his ministry. He prayed four months before presenting his project to the king (Neh 2:1–2) and sought God’s wisdom for decisions throughout his ministry. He also carefully planned his strategy and actions (Neh 2:6–9, 11–15) and took time to evaluate the current situation before each decision. When working with a community, a leader must also be able to motivate people. Nehemiah had a special ability to motivate the people and then to delegate responsibilities in a wise manner.
A godly leader must be a people-person. Nehemiah sympathized with the feelings of the people (Neh 1:4; 2:17), listened to their problems (Neh 3:10, 23; 4:10; 5:1–4), and was sensitive to their needs. He joined with them in the work (Neh 4:23; 5:16). He was generous in sharing his own goods (Neh 5:10, 14–18). Nehemiah’s love and tactfulness in dealing with people is seen in how he wisely presents his project to the people (Neh 2:17–18), encourages them (Neh 4:14), assigns work crews near their own homes (Neh 3:10, 23), and resolves conflicts (Neh 5:6–9).
How a leader confronts opposition is often an indicator of leadership ability. Nehemiah’s wisdom, trust in God, courage, action, firmness, and honesty in the face of many types of opposition are excellent examples for every leader.
Can an administrative leader have an impact on the spiritual life of a community? Nehemiah’s emphasis on the Word of God, worship, humility, repentance, faith, and recommitment played a key role in the renewal of the community. His insistence on putting decisions in writing, obedience to God’s Word, and vigilance in holy living were vital for continued renewal.
Nehemiah probably never appeared in the news reports of the great Persian Empire. But in God’s plan for the survival of this community, through which came the Bible and eventually our Savior, his leadership has eternal importance. So too a Christian leader today may never share in the limelight but may still have lasting significance in the kingdom of God.
Social Injustice in the Old Testament
The exploitation or oppression by one’s fellow human beings is one of the most detrimental evils in any society. It is one of the major themes of the OT prophets, who denounce Israelite society for condoning the injustice in their midst. According to the prophets, exploitation is one of the major causes of the exile (Is 1:15–17; 58:6; Jr 7:5–7; 21:12–14; Am 2:6–8; 5:11–12; Mc 2:2). It is an indication that the people are becoming insensitive to God’s laws and principles revealed to them through Moses.
The law of Moses is part of God’s covenant with Israel as a people. The individual is important but is expected to act in benefit of the whole community. Therefore the individual’s relations to fellow Israelites should never be purely business transactions; they should also be spiritual service pleasing to God.
The Mosaic law therefore provides regulations to maintain a respectable level of equality in the community and also provides ways to alleviate poverty when it exists: (1) Those in dire need can sell the crop value of their land until the next Jubilee year; then the land reverts to the original owner (Lv 25:8–17). (2) Those with means are to help the poor. No interest is to be charged on loaned money, nor is food to be sold to the poor for profit (Lv 25:35–38). (3) People in extreme poverty can sell themselves to one with means, to serve for six years. When Israelite servants are set free, their masters must give them liberal supplies of animals and food (Dt 15:12–15). (4) All debts are to be canceled every seven years (Dt 15:1–2).
God expects his covenant people to abide by these laws and therefore treat one another justly and with compassion. When they ignore these laws, they risk losing their covenant blessings, including being exiled from the promised land.
Biblical texts and archaeological discoveries tell us about the fortifications that protected cities during the time of the OT. Large fortified cities were typically built on tels—hills that provided natural defense and gradually rose higher as the city was destroyed and rebuilt multiple times. These cities usually had outer protective walls with one or more gates for people to enter or exit the city. Abraham sits at such a gate at Hebron when he purchases the cave to bury Sarah (Gn 23). This probably occurred during the Middle Bronze period (2000–1550 BC), when many cities had massive fortifications that included a city wall, gate(s), glacis (a steep artificial earthen slope built below the city wall to protect it from attackers), and bastions or projections from the wall to help with its defense.
The subsequent Late Bronze period (1550–1200 BC) witnessed a general cultural decline that affected fortifications, so by the time the Israelites left Egypt and returned to Canaan, many cities were apparently rather vulnerable. Some still used the strong earlier defenses (see Dt 1:28). Most had little to help ward off attackers other than building homes in a ring so that their connected, exterior walls formed a simple type of city wall. This general weakness probably helped Joshua’s conquest (see Jos 10:29–39) and continued through the time of the judges during Iron Age I (1200–1000 BC).
The cultural and population resurgence experienced in about 1000 BC was likewise reflected in city fortifications. Archaeologists have uncovered the corner of a fortified building, perhaps a palace/fortress for Saul at his home in Gibeah (1 Sm 10:26), north of Jerusalem. No fortifications have definitively been connected to David, but Solomon’s fortifications at the key sites of Gezer, Megiddo, and Hazor (1 Kg 9:15) are apparently reflected in the similar gates and walls found there. The gates all have six chambers, perhaps for storage or guards, and are connected to casemate walls, made of parallel walls a few yards apart with adjoining perpendicular walls that form rooms. These rooms were used as living space during peacetime (note Rahab in Jericho’s wall [Jos 2:15]) and filled with rubble to form a solid wall during wartime.
Iron Age II (1000–586 BC) saw Israelite fortifications flourish. Major cities had strong, solid city walls up to twenty-three feet thick, with towers and bastions. A few cities like Jerusalem (2 Kg 20:20) and Megiddo also had impressive water systems hewed through bedrock that enabled residents to access water even during times of siege. But all these cities had fallen to conquerors by 586 BC, and those like Nehemiah who helped rebuild these fortifications in the postexilic period would have struggled with far fewer resources than in earlier days. Likewise, they would have been rebuilding smaller cities for smaller populations.
The Retribution Principle and the Sovereignty of God
The retribution principle, expressed in passages such as Pr 28:10 and Ps 1, teaches that because God is just, in his ordered world the righteous will be blessed and the wicked will suffer adversity. Job’s friends agree that this principle is true, even that those who prosper are pious and those who suffer are necessarily sinners, and they apply all this to Job. They are ignorant of what the reader knows from the prologue, that in Job’s case there are other factors involved. In Job 8, Bildad intensifies the retribution principle into a rigid formula of double retribution, in which God always prospers the righteous and always destroys the wicked. Zophar, in Job 11, and Eliphaz, in Job 22, assume the validity of Bildad’s teaching and develop additional implications from it. Elihu later qualifies the retribution formula by suggesting that God uses adversity to reveal to humans their sin.
Job also assumes the general validity of the retribution principle. Like his friends, Job wants the retribution formula to work. But in contrast to his friends, who insist that he is sinful and deserving of punishment, Job maintains that he is as righteous as ever and is unjustly under attack by God. He cannot understand why his life has turned so dramatically from blessing to adversity. The tension between God’s sovereign and just rule and Job’s apparently arbitrary experience of adversity produces deep dissonance in Job’s mind. Yet Job still holds to the long view of retribution, that eventually God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked.
Ultimately, by using the retribution principle to indict Job of his alleged sins, the friends have reduced God to a predictable deity who is limited by a fixed formula, but in the end God implies that Job was right while the friends were wrong. The book of Job shows that the sovereign God is free to act however he chooses, even in ways that may not fit into a tidy formula of retribution.
“I Know That My Redeemer Lives”
Job 19:25 may be the best-known—and most-debated—verse in the book of Job. Often it has been read through the lens of the NT. Many people have taken this verse (along with Jb 9:33–34; 16:19–21; 33:23–28) as a messianic reference to Christ. However, the NT theology that is often read into this reference was not yet revealed at the time of the writing of the book of Job. In addition, “Redeemer” (Hb goel) here does not likely have the sense of salvation from bondage to sin (see Rm 3:24) but rather has a broader sense of rescue from harm (e.g., see Pss 103:4; 107:2–3).
The Hebrew word goel was used in OT legal literature to refer to a near relative who was called on to perform several important roles, such as paying a debt (Lv 25:47–48), marrying a childless widow to produce an heir (Ru 4:3–5), or avenging a death (Nm 35:12). In addition, the goel likely served as a legal advocate. Here, the “Redeemer” (goel) that Job envisions will stand up to defend him (cf. Jb 16:19). This legal defender will take up Job’s cause even after his death, and because of that Job feels assured that he will eventually be vindicated.
The term “redeemer” came to be applied figuratively to the Lord as he liberated the people of Israel from bondage in Egypt (Ex 6:6) and later from their Babylonian captivity (Is 49:7–9). Only in the NT would the concept of redemption be developed to speak of what Christ has accomplished for humans as the divine provision for the justification of sinners (Rm 5:8–9). As the ultimate redeemer for sinful humans, Christ is able to plead successfully for them on the merits of his own perfect atonement for sin.
Music was foundational to all cultures in the ancient Near East, including those cultures that dwelled in Israel/Palestine. Archaeological-iconographic evidence is extensive. Terra-cotta figurines playing a variety of musical instruments have been found, as well as actual clay rattles, cymbals, and flutes. Numerous drawings depict dancing and the playing of instruments. For example, archaeologists have unearthed floor stones in the city of Megiddo (3000 BC) depicting dancers, a female harpist, and a drummer.
The OT itself suggests the antiquity of music. The earliest mention of music appears in Gn 4:21, where Jubal is the ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe. The occupation of musician is mentioned alongside those of herdsman (Gn 4:20) and of metallurgist (Gn 4:22), suggesting that music was not considered an ancillary part of life but rather was central to the composition of society itself.
The biblical text records the close connection between war and music or musical instruments. For example, Gideon’s military assault on the Midianites includes the blasting of horns as war begins (Jdg 7:19–20). When David and Saul return from battle, they are met by women who are singing and dancing as well as playing the tambourine and the sistrum (1 Sm 18:6–7; cf. 2 Sm 6:5). A similar scene appears in Ex 15, when Miriam and the other women sing and play the tambourine following the rout of the Egyptian army.
Musicians were also part of the royal retinue. Saul lauds David’s ability as a court musician (1 Sm 16:23). Singing men and women are mentioned in 2 Sm 19:35. Amos’s critique of the northern kingdom includes the wealthy rulers who stretch out on couches and sing songs to the sound of the harp.
Music is frequently associated with prophecy in the OT. Biblical texts suggest music is used to induce a state of prophetic ecstasy. In 1 Sm 10:5, Samuel tells Saul that he will encounter a band of prophets playing the harp, the tambourine, the flute, and the lyre. Upon hearing the music Saul will fall into a prophetic frenzy, and the spirit of the Lord will be upon him (cf. 2 Kg 3:15).
Music is also central to worship, and the book of Psalms provides ample evidence for the use of singing and instrumental music in the temple. Numerous instruments are mentioned throughout the Psalter, as is the frequent command for the people to sing or lift up a song (cf. Ps 81:3–4). The superscriptions contain what many believe are musical expressions, such as “according to ‘The Lilies’” (Pss 45 and 69), but the precise meaning of these directives has been lost to history.
Music, singing, and dancing were a part of everyday life as well (Gn 31:27; Jdg 21:20–21; Is 16:10–11).
The Psalms make numerous references to “the king.” Much of the time these references are clearly referring to the current king who is ruling in Jerusalem at the time of the composition of that psalm. Sometimes the king is David. In many cases, however, the description or comments regarding the king seem to move in an idealized direction to foreshadow or perhaps even prophesy the coming messianic king. Both Ps 2 and Ps 110 clearly refer to the coming messianic king, and the NT verifies this connection (e.g., Ps 2:7 is quoted in Heb 1:5; Jesus identifies himself as David’s Lord of Ps 110:1 in Mt 22:41–45; Mk 12:35–37; and Lk 20:41–44).
Another fascinating psalm that is connected to Jesus in the NT is Ps 22, a personal lament. Jesus quotes Ps 22:1 as he hangs from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (Mt 27:46), indicating for us that Ps 22 may be describing more than David’s suffering. In fact, Ps 22:15–18 appears to describe the crucifixion of Christ with remarkable accuracy: dried mouth, pierced hands and feet, garments divided, and lots cast. Apparently in Ps 22 David is describing his own terrible suffering with figurative language that will also apply to Jesus literally.
The NT writers quote from Psalms more than any other OT book. They connect many verses in Psalms with various aspects in the life of Christ. One of the most explicit examples of this is found in Ac 2:25–36, where Peter quotes Ps 16:8–11 and Ps 110:1, connecting both of these psalms to Jesus, particularly to his resurrection and exaltation.
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.
Sin enters the biblical story in Gn 3. Despite God’s commandment to the contrary (Gn 2:16–17), Eve eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the prompting of the serpent. When Adam joins Eve in eating the fruit, their rebellion is complete. They attempt to cover their guilt and shame, but the fig leaves are inadequate. God confronts them, and judgment falls heavily on the serpent, Eve, and Adam; even creation itself is affected (Gn 3:17–18). In the midst of judgment, God makes it clear that sin does not have the last word. First, God promises to put hostility between the offspring of the serpent and that of the woman (Gn 3:15). Second, God replaces the inadequate covering of the fig leaves with animal skins (Gn 3:21). The implication is that the death of the animal functions 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 (Gn 12:1–3), who eventually multiply into the nation of Israel. After God redeems them from slavery in Egypt (Ex 1–15), he brings them to Sinai to make a covenant with them that is predicated on obedience (Ex 19:5–6). A central component of this covenant is the sacrificial system (e.g., Lv 1–7), which God provides as a means of dealing with sin. In addition to the regular sacrifices made for sin throughout the year, God sets apart one day a year to atone for Israel’s sins, the Day of Atonement (Lv 16). In order for the holy God to dwell with sinful people, extensive provisions have to be made to enable fellowship.
Despite these provisions, Israel repeatedly and persistently breaks its covenant with God, even at the highest points of prosperity under the reigns of David and Solomon (e.g., 2 Sm 11:1–27; 1 Kg 11:1–8). Once the nation splits into two (Israel and Judah), sin and its consequences accelerate; the result is exile from the land. But God refuses to give up on his people. He promises to raise up a servant who will suffer for the sins of his people as a guilt offering (Is 52:13–53:12). After God’s people return from exile, hopes remain high that the prophetic promises are at hand. But disillusionment quickly sets in as the returnees remain under foreign oppression and a Davidic king is nowhere to be found.
During the next four hundred years of prophetic silence, the longing for God to finally put away the sins of his people grows. At last, when the conception and birth of Jesus are announced, it is revealed that he will “save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). John the Baptist prepares the way for the public ministry of Jesus by “proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3). Whereas both Adam and Israel were disobedient sons of God, Jesus proves to be the obedient Son by his faithfulness to God (Mt 2:13–15; 4:1–11; 26:36–46; Lk 3:23–4:13; Rm 5:12–21; Php 2:8; Heb 5:8–10). He is also the Suffering Servant who gives his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:45; cf. Is 52:13–53:12). On the cross Jesus experiences the wrath of God that God’s people rightly deserve for their sin. What neither the law nor the blood of bulls and goats could do, Jesus does with his own blood (Rm 8:3–4; Heb 9:1–10:18).
After his resurrection and ascension, Jesus’s followers begin proclaiming the “good news” (gospel) of what Jesus did and calling to people, “Repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Ac 2:38). As people experience God’s forgiveness, they forgive those who have sinned against them (Mt 6:12; 18:15–20; Col 3:13). Although believers continue to struggle with sin in this life (Rm 8:12–13; Gl 5:16–25), sin is no longer master over them (Rm 6:1–23). The Holy Spirit empowers them to fight sin as they long for the new heaven and new earth, where there will be no sin, no death, and no curse (Rm 8:12–30; Rv 21–22).
Psalm 110 foretells the coronation ceremony of Christ, who will reign forever as King with his enemies subdued beneath his feet (Mt 22:44; Lk 20:42–43; Ac 2:34–35; Heb 1:13; 10:13). This idea of Christ as King appears throughout the NT. The First Gospel begins with the claim that Jesus is the “son” or descendant of King David, presupposing the significance of the biblical narrative about the kings of Israel for understanding the gospel (Mt 1:1, 6; see also Rm 1:3; 2 Tm 2:8). The epithet also creates an almost immediate conflict with Herod the Great (Mt 2:1–2), who was given the title “King of the Jews” by the Roman senate in 40 BC, although he was not a Jew. Herod unsuccessfully attempts to kill the infant king, but Jesus finally is executed by the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate as “King of the Jews” (Mt 27:37).
The popular Jewish emphasis on a violent overthrow of Rome probably explains why in the Gospels Jesus himself does not emphasize his kingship in his ministry, except for the explicit fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble king riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (Mt 21:1–9; cf. Zch 9:9; see also Is 62:11). However, following his resurrection and final instructions to his disciples, Jesus ascends to the right hand of the Father (Lk 24:50–51; Ac 1:6–11; 2:33–36), the coronation ceremony foretold in the psalms (Pss 2; 110). He presently reigns from heaven (Rv 1:5; cf. Mt 28:18), but he will return to make his authority explicit on earth, which includes the dispensing of justice (2 Th 1:5–12). His rule is present, however, in the lives of those who obey him and wherever the Holy Spirit is manifested.
Wisdom in the Ancient Near East
The OT refers to wisdom traditions in the ancient Near East (1 Kg 4:30). Indeed, though here Solomon’s wisdom is said to exceed that of Egypt and the people of the east, the compliment only makes sense if ancient Near Eastern wisdom had value. The proverb in particular was a popular genre in the ancient Near East. Proverbs are among the earliest literature known, dating to the first half of the third millennium BC, and they persisted to the latest periods of ancient Near Eastern literature. Indeed there is strong evidence that the biblical writers were aware of other ancient Near Eastern texts and sometimes even drew inspiration from them as they wrote their proverbs in Hebrew.
Many ancient wisdom texts are available for study today. Egypt had a strong wisdom tradition represented by instructional texts and speculative works. The instructional literature is like the book of Proverbs and appears as early as the Old Kingdom period (about 2715–2170 BC) and down to the late Egyptian period. The instructions are from a father to a son; in some examples, the father is the king. The father is old and experienced, about to step down from his high position in society, and his son is just starting. The best-known example is the Instruction of Amenemope (thought to have been composed a century before Solomon). Egyptian literature also attests a tradition of speculative wisdom literature that expresses a more pessimistic view of life, questioning the justice of this world. The Eloquent Peasant is a study of the exploitation of the poor by the powerful. The Dispute over Suicide expresses severe disappointment in this life in a manner comparable to the Teacher in Ecclesiastes.
Wisdom traditions also stretch back to some of the earliest writings of the Sumerians, inhabitants of Mesopotamia in the third millennium BC. More than twenty-five collections of proverbs are known from this early period. Some of the topics are similar to those treated in Proverbs, including family relationships, women, the liar, the court, and the good/righteous person. Besides these lists of proverbs, Sumerian literature also has an instructional text similar to Proverbs and the Egyptian literature called the Instructions of Shuruppak, named after the speaker of the teaching. Shuruppak advises his son Ziusudra, the famous hero who survived the flood. While Akkadian literature (the language of second- and first-millennium inhabitants of Mesopotamia, the Babylonians and Assyrians) has no significant proverb collection, it does attest a number of speculative wisdom texts. The Babylonian Theodicy may be the best known and is most like the book of Job. This text is a dialogue between two men who are friends and keep the conversation civil, but they disagree about the relationship between suffering and the gods.
Finally, mention should be made of an ancient wisdom text written in Aramaic titled Ahiqar after its main character. The story is set in the seventh century BC and begins with the story of a wise man who is betrayed by his nephew. He escapes execution and flees into exile. After his restoration, he instructs his nephew by proverbs that constitute the large end of the text. Some of these proverbs seem closely related to the teaching of Proverbs, perhaps most notably, “Spare not your son from the rod; otherwise, can you save him [from wickedness]?” (Saying 3, compare Pr 13:24; 23:13–14).
Proverbs and the Instruction of Amenemope
Since the discovery and translation of the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope in the 1920s, scholars have noted its striking parallels with Pr 22:17–24:22 and debated the nature of that relationship. One scholar lists as many as seventeen verbal or thematic parallels between the texts, claiming that the author of these chapters of Proverbs excerpted and summarized the Instruction of Amenemope. Many OT scholars are so convinced of this literary dependence that they emend the Hebrew text in at least five places to conform to the Egyptian text and speculatively subdivide Pr 22:17–24:22 into thirty “sayings” to correspond to the thirty chapters of the Instruction of Amenemope.
Some caution is warranted, however, for a number of reasons. The parallels noted between the two texts (1) derive from only eight of the thirty chapters of the Instruction of Amenemope, (2) are confined to Pr 22:17–23:11, (3) occur in Proverbs in a puzzling order (i.e., 2, 3, 16, 1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 14, 15, 9, 10, 11, 6, 7, 8), and (4) are quite similar to other OT and ancient Near Eastern texts.
Yet, even if the Israelite sage has borrowed from Egyptian wisdom here because it accurately expresses how God set up the world, the sage has transformed that wisdom by theologically refocusing it to promote reverence for Yahweh. (See also “Wisdom in the Ancient Near East” in the introduction to Proverbs.)
The Hebrew word hebel is a critically important word in Ecclesiastes, occurring thirty-eight times. The importance of this word is stressed from the very beginning. After the heading, Ec 1:2 provides an opening synopsis for most of the book: “Absolute futility. . . . Absolute futility. Everything is futile.”
Hebel is a difficult word to translate into English. Its root meaning is related to “breath” or “vapor” (e.g., “A human is like a breath [hebel]; his days are like a passing shadow,” Ps 144:4), and the word can also be used to describe a mist. In this sense it refers to something that looks like it is there but really isn’t. A low-lying cloud or mist looks like something firm from a distance, but as you draw close, it disappears, and you realize that it was just an illusion of sorts. The Teacher of Ecclesiastes tells us that, when viewed apart from God, the meaning of life is this way. You think you can see it and grasp it, but, like a cloud or vapor, it disappears and leaves you with nothing. A similar meaning is conveyed by the phrase “a pursuit of the wind.” This phrase is often added alongside of the concept of hebel to further enhance the nuance of futility (Ec 1:14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6; 6:9).
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. One can gain a better understanding of wisdom by investigating the traits of a person who is considered to be wise.
First, the wise are those involved in lifelong character development who manifest virtues such as righteousness, justice, and equity (Pr 1:3; 2:9). The embodiment of these virtues culminates in the description of the woman of noble character (Pr 31:10–31). She exhibits self-control, patience, care, diligence, discipline, humility, generosity, honesty, and fear of the Lord (cf. Jms 3:13–18).
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 (Jb 29:21–22; Pr 15:23; 25:11; Ec 3:7; 12:9–10).
Third, the wise place great importance on relationships and on interaction with others. A wise person is open to the give-and-take of relationships (Pr 27:5–6, 17, 19) and develops the humility necessary to receive correction and criticism from others. Wisdom is, ultimately, relational.
Fourth, the wise person develops the art of discernment and the ability to think critically (Pr 1:2, 4–6). 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 (Pr 17:16).
Fifth, and most fundamental, the wise person takes a God-centered focus toward life. The fear of the Lord is the beginning as well as the culmination of wisdom (Pr 9:10; cf. Pr 1:7; Jb 28:28; Ec 12:13). Since fearing the Lord is the beginning step in the path to gaining wisdom, one who misses this step can proceed no further. The wise gain wisdom by being in relationship with the Lord (Pr 3:5–8).
Wisdom is a highly prized quality, superior to might and power (Pr 25:15; Ec 9:13–16), and one must diligently seek it (Pr 2:1–5). Yet in the end, wisdom is a gift that only God can give (Pr 2:6–8; 1 Kg 3:9).
The Teacher’s Search for an Upright Woman
Ecclesiastes 7:26–28 contains some of the most difficult verses in this book, and a key issue is the identity of the “woman” that the Teacher found / did not find (Ec 7:26 and 28). Several considerations make it unlikely that these verses indicate misogyny. Ec 7:23–25 make it clear that the Teacher has been unable to find sufficient wisdom to fully understand life and the work of God in the world. He has, though, found one thing in his quest: a “woman” who entraps those who come near her. His language is similar to that used in the early chapters of Proverbs, where young men are warned about the dangers of the adulteress and the immoral woman. Passages like Pr 9:13–18 describe Lady Folly in much the same way as the woman is described in Ec 7:26, and this is likely what the Teacher has in mind.
While the Teacher uses the Hebrew word adam (“man, humankind”) in the generic sense of “humankind” throughout the book, he seems to make a distinction between male and female in Ec 7:28 (“I found one person in a thousand, but none of those was a woman”), though the focus of the distinction remains ambiguous. Was he searching for a person of great wisdom or great righteousness, or was it the ability to consistently resist the seductions of folly? Or was it something less tied to the context, like a person he could relate to at a deep and intimate level or someone he could genuinely understand? If he was seeking a person with great wisdom or righteousness, the Teacher’s conclusion illustrates the limited nature of human experience and the problem with trying to construct a model of reality from one’s own limited experiences of life.
Ecclesiastes 7:29 makes it clear that the problem of folly, lack of righteousness, or the propensity to lead others astray is not gender specific but is innate to humanity. Whereas 7:23–28 describe the Teacher’s search for the wisdom that will enable him to understand all that happens in the world, what he finds instead is folly, and 7:29 suggests that the pervasive folly in the world is a consequence of human refusal to embrace God’s order.
Song of Songs in the Broader Biblical Context
In the early chapters of Genesis, God creates Adam and makes the woman as an appropriate helper for him. The account makes it clear that human beings were not made to function independently and autonomously but were made for relationships. The companion that God designs for the man is not an inferior partner but a helper who brings strengths to match the man’s weaknesses. This interdependent relationship is a fundamental part of God’s design and suggests that the one-flesh relationship includes far more than the physical and sexual. The fall and God’s judgment on humanity have brought significant dysfunction to male-female relationships, and what is often observed and experienced in male-female relationships reflects something quite different from God’s design.
The question of how the relationship between a man and a woman is supposed to work is rarely addressed in the OT. We often catch glimpses of dysfunctional relationships (Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and his family, David, Solomon, and the rape of Tamar), but it is far more unusual to see a relationship that works according to God’s order. Proverbs often contrasts the positive and the negative potential of marriage relationships, but we are still left wondering what this one-flesh relationship, functioning according to God’s design, looks like in practice. It seems likely that Song of Songs is a picture of this kind of relationship between a man and a woman.
The relationship that we see in the Song is characterized by love, mutual respect, and praise for and delight in each other, and we learn by observing the relationship and hearing what the characters say to each other. The power of the Song lies in its ability to draw us into the experience of the couple to participate vicariously in that relationship. In the process we learn significant things about how the one-flesh relationship that God designed is supposed to work.
Song of Songs and Sexual Morality
Solomon’s connection with Song of Songs sets it in the context of OT wisdom, with its focus on discovering the basic principles that operate in the world. This also anchors the book in a context that affirms the moral teaching of OT Wisdom literature. In common with wisdom’s approach, the Song teaches by allowing the reader to observe the couple and listen to their conversations.
The absence of clear moral teaching about sexuality in the Song (perhaps with the exception of Sg 2:7; 3:5; and 8:4) is likely related to the purpose of the book and the pedagogy of wisdom. The book describes and celebrates love and romance between a man and a woman, and didactic discussions of morality would take away from the basic point the Song is making. In proverbial instruction an individual proverb generally captures a tiny cross section of truth rather than providing a comprehensive treatment of a topic, and this is true even when moral and ethical considerations are obviously relevant. People are expected to bring the appropriate moral and ethical principles to bear as they apply the principle to life. The only context in which we have the Song is the context of the biblical canon, and it likely presupposes that moral values must be brought from that broader tradition.
The abundance of poetic literary devices contributes to notorious difficulties in interpreting love poetry, and there is a wide range of opinions about the way and extent to which the Song describes the sexual activity of the couple. The Song uses indirect language, and this gives the text an important quality: it can be read either very explicitly or as subtly erotic.
The book, almost certainly, is about love rather than sex, and the descriptions of intimacy involve far more than physical sexual activity. Recognizing the nature of poetic language and the subtle and reserved ways in which the episodes are depicted in the Song (e.g., the way the couple’s sexual experience is described in Sg 4:12–5:1) allows a reader to appreciate the fact that love can express itself in many different ways besides the physical.
Theophany: A Direct Encounter with God
Although in one sense God is present everywhere throughout the world, there are times in the OT when God appears to someone in a highly intensified presence. Such an appearance, called a theophany, is fairly rare, and when it does occur, the event is extremely significant. Usually theophanies occur at crucial times in the lives of God’s people, and they provide new (or, at least, clearer) directions regarding the relationship between God and his people. The three most descriptive theophanies in the OT are Moses’s encounter with God at the burning bush (Ex 3), Isaiah’s encounter with God in the temple (Is 6), and Ezekiel’s encounter with God while in exile (Ezk 1). These appearances of God are usually frightening to the people involved, at least initially, but God moves quickly to calm their fear, for usually he has something very significant to reveal to that person—a promise or a call to a critical task. Such highly intense appearances of God (i.e., meeting “face to face”) serve to underscore the importance of the event as well as to stress the personal relationship between God and the recipient. In addition, usually a theophany reveals important theological truth relating to God—his holiness, his power, his relatedness, and the revelation of his word.
Isaiah and the other prophets spend a considerable amount of time pronouncing judgment on the Babylonians. In fact, judgment on Babylon is the primary theme of Is 13; 14; 21; and 47. Likewise Jeremiah spends two entire chapters proclaiming judgment on the Babylonians (Jr 50–51). Why do Isaiah and Jeremiah devote so much of their prophetic voice to proclaiming judgment on the Babylonians? It is the Babylonians who utterly destroy Jerusalem in 587/586 BC, killing thousands and hauling the survivors off to Babylonia as captives. No other enemy devastates Jerusalem and Judah to the extent that the Babylonians do. Thus the Babylonians come to epitomize the ultimate enemy, and both Jeremiah and Isaiah preach judgment against Babylon as the climax of judgment on the nations. The book of Revelation appears to use the term “Babylon” in this sense (Rv 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Many scholars believe that John uses the term “Babylon” in Revelation to represent Rome and the Roman Empire.
But what ultimately happened to Babylon? Cyrus the king of Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC but did not destroy it. Part of the city was later destroyed in 482 BC after the Babylonians rebelled against the Persians. Seleucus, one of Alexander the Great’s generals, seized Babylon in 312 BC, and his successor, Antiochus I (281–261 BC), moved the capital of the region to a new city, thus abandoning Babylon. When the Parthians conquered the region in 122 BC they found only ruins at Babylon. Likewise, when the Roman emperor Trajan traveled through this area in AD 116, he also saw only destruction and ruins where the mighty and spectacular Babylon had been.
Some modern writers have argued that Babylon was never destroyed exactly in the literal manner described by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. However, Isaiah and Jeremiah are using highly figurative, poetic language to predict the literal demise of Babylon (which happened).
One of the most important themes in Isaiah is the messianic promise of a Davidic king. Yet intertwined throughout Is 42–53 are several passages that also identify the coming messianic personage as a servant, or more specifically, the Servant of the Lord. Often called the “Servant Songs,” four passages in Isaiah focus particularly on the coming servant of the Lord (Is 42:1–9; 49:1–13; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). These texts present several important aspects of the coming servant. First, God declares that he delights in his servant and that he will put his Spirit on him. Furthermore, the servant will establish justice and righteousness, two dominating themes of the prophetic literature associated with the coming Messiah. The servant will regather the people of Israel, but he will also be a light and a covenant to the nations/Gentiles and thus will provide life for all of God’s people. Ironically, however, and in contrast to the Davidic kingly images of the Messiah, Isaiah declares that the servant will come quietly and humbly. Shockingly, the servant of the Lord will be mocked and rejected by his people, even though he bears their sin and suffers for their iniquities. In fact, Isaiah declares, it is through the suffering of the servant that righteousness is to be found (thus the servant is often referred to as the Suffering Servant). Even though the servant will suffer greatly and be humiliated, ultimately he will be lifted up and exalted.
Throughout the Gospels there are quotes from and allusions to the Servant Songs, especially Is 53, thus establishing clearly that Jesus is the promised servant of the Lord. Paul makes numerous allusions to Is 53 as he discusses the redemptive work of Christ (e.g., Php 2:7), and Peter includes the servant theme as part of his foundational understanding of Jesus’s work and mission (1 Pt 2:22–25).
Yet, although the NT bears strong testimony that Isaiah’s prophecies concerning the servant of the Lord are fulfilled by the Messiah, Jesus Christ, there is still a sense in which Jesus also represents the ideal Israel. Unlike Israel, however, Jesus (the true Israel) is completely obedient, thus fulfilling many of the things that the nation itself had failed to complete. In this sense, as we find in Isaiah, the nation Israel can be called “the servant.” On the other hand, only Jesus Christ, as the perfect and ideal servant of the Lord, fulfills all that Isaiah prophesies of the coming one in the Servant Songs.
Light is a central theme running throughout the Bible. It can be used to symbolize the truth or the enlightenment that enables one to see the truth. In the OT, light also carries some other nuances. Often light is connected to true justice or true righteousness, or to God’s powerful presence and his creative activity (e.g., Gn 1). It also is often closely related to God’s glory. Darkness, by contrast, is used in the OT to represent not only foolishness and ignorance but also judgment, particularly judgment that involves the loss of God’s presence, ultimately leading to death.
In Is 9:2 the prophet Isaiah describes the coming of the Messiah as a time when light will replace darkness. In Is 40–66 the prophet stresses that the Messiah (servant of the Lord) will bring salvation both to Israel and to the Gentiles (i.e., the nations). These two themes merge when God declares to the servant, “I will also make you a light for the nations, to be my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Is 49:6; 42:6). So “light” in this context includes enlightenment or knowledge (the Gentiles will be able to understand), but it also provides an image of salvation itself—the “light to the nations” is the one who brings them salvation.
The NT continues to use this theme. John 1 connects Jesus to “light,” ascribing to Christ many of the OT nuances connected with light—the presence of God, creative power, life, enlightenment. In Jn 8:12 Jesus makes a similar connection, declaring, “I am the light of the world.” Likewise, in Acts as Paul shifts the focus of his work from the Jews to the Gentiles, he quotes from Is 49:6: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles” (Ac 13:47). This prophecy reaches its ultimate reality in the book of Revelation, for in the closing chapters, the climax of all human history is described as living in the light of God. Indeed, Rv 21:23–24 pulls these strands together, proclaiming, “The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations [Gentiles] will walk by its light.”
“The Year of the LORD’S Favor”
The prophetic proclamation of Is 61 particularly includes “the year of the LORD’S favor” (Is 61:2). The proclamation of the acceptable year of the Lord is directly connected to the proclamation of the day of vengeance. The one focuses on God’s kindness to his people, whereas the other focuses on God’s judgment on the wicked. “The year of the LORD’S favor” is also a prophetic reference to God’s administration of grace, which culminates in the restoration of all things. This restoration includes the promises of forgiveness and full fellowship with God and the removal of physical problems, obstacles, and mourning. It is the year of Jubilee, the year of liberation (Lv 25:10). The year of restoration is not limited to one particular day or year, but it extends from the postexilic restoration to the full restoration of heaven and earth. Finally, the acceptable year of the Lord proclaims comfort to all the people of God, as they are comforted by God’s grace, physically as well as spiritually.
The purpose of the acceptable year of the Lord is to prepare the Lord’s people for the fullness of redemption. While they are on earth they receive the firstfruits of redemption. The Jews after the exile experienced restoration of the cities, help from the nations, and productivity of the land. Since the coming of Jesus Christ the people of God are now made up of Gentiles as well as Jews. Jesus further proclaimed the good news of the prophets and focused on himself as the one bringing in the era of restoration. He also promised that he would accomplish all when he returns. Jesus applied the message of liberation in Is 61 to his healing of the blind, deaf, and lame as a token that God is concerned about our whole being, including our physical welfare. Moreover, we are the recipients of the grace, comfort, and forgiveness of God. Yet this message speaks of a greater era in which God will restore heaven and earth through the ministry of Jesus Christ.
What Happened to the Ark of the Covenant?
The ark of the covenant was a wooden box, approximately forty-five inches long, twenty-seven inches wide, and twenty-seven inches high, covered inside and out with gold, capped with a golden mercy seat that was flanked by two golden cherubim. When God brought Israel out of Egypt during the exodus, he gave Moses specific instructions on how to construct this ark (Ex 25). Throughout the early history of Israel, the ark of the covenant played a critical role, for it represented the focal point of God’s presence among Israel, combining his holiness and his power with his desire to dwell among his people and relate to them.
In 3:16 Jeremiah makes a very radical prediction: in the future restoration the ark will be gone, and, more surprisingly, no one will even miss it. In accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, the ark of the covenant disappeared from biblical history after the Babylonians captured and destroyed Jerusalem in 587/586 BC. What happened to it?
Numerous legends and theories that attempt to answer this question continue to circulate. One very questionable Jewish legend states that Jeremiah himself hid the ark beneath the Temple Mount just before the Babylonians captured the city. Some speculate that it is still there. A few people claim to have seen it. Most OT scholars find this legend highly unlikely, without any verifiable evidence to support it.
Another legend about the ark comes from Ethiopia. The Ethiopian national folk legend states that the queen of Sheba was an Ethiopian queen. After she visited King Solomon in Jerusalem, she returned to Ethiopia and gave birth to Solomon’s son, a boy named Menilek. Later, Menilek returned to Jerusalem to visit his father, but then he stole the ark of the covenant, taking it with him back to Ethiopia, where it remains to this day. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church claims to have the original ark of the covenant in a church in the ancient city of Axum. Unfortunately, they will not let any scholars examine it.
The problem with this legend is that it doesn’t square with history. King Solomon predates the Axumite kingdom of Menilek by nearly one thousand years. Thus it is highly unlikely that Solomon was Menilek’s father. However, the Ethiopians have something very old and significant in that church that has produced this ancient legend, along with several church rituals relating to the ark. What do they actually have in that church?
One possibility relates to a Jewish colony that was built in ancient southern Egypt on the Isle of Elephantine on the Nile River. In the sixth century BC the Egyptians hired Jewish mercenaries to defend a fortress on this island. Archaeological excavations on this site indicate that these Jews apparently constructed a model of the temple in Jerusalem on their island, ostensibly to worship God. Did they also construct a model of the ark of the covenant to place in that temple? Perhaps. No one knows for certain what happened to these Jewish mercenaries who had settled in southern Egypt. Some suggest they migrated east into Ethiopia, taking their replica of the ark with them. If this scenario is true, then the Ethiopians might have this ark, a very old (and highly significant) replica of the ark of the covenant, but not the original.
Most scholars maintain that the most likely fate of the ark of the covenant is that the Babylonian army melted it down and carried the gold back to Babylonia. At any rate, Jeremiah was correct. The ark disappeared. Today Christians experience God’s presence through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; thus they do not miss the ark of the covenant.
One of the unique features of the book of Jeremiah is that the prophet provides a penetrating look into his personal thoughts and reactions. At several places in the book, Jeremiah cries out to God, complaining or lamenting about the difficult situation he faces. The passages that contain Jeremiah’s “laments” are Jr 11:20–23; 12:1–4; 15:10–11, 15–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; and 20:7–13. Sometimes Jeremiah laments about the sad state of affairs (morally and theologically) in Jerusalem. Often he cries out that everyone has rejected him and his message. He feels all alone, struggling futilely against the powerful leaders (king, prophets, priests, nobles) in Jerusalem. On the one hand, occasionally he seems to slide over into whining just a bit. On the other hand, the threats against Jeremiah’s life are real. He is not imagining the danger. Thus sometimes in his lament to God he calls on God to deliver him and to smite those who plot to kill him. In general God seems to tolerate Jeremiah’s complaints, and usually God answers with encouraging words. In Jr 15:18, however, Jeremiah goes too far and accuses God of deceiving him. At this point God issues a mild rebuke: “If you return, I will take you back; you will stand in my presence. And if you speak noble words, rather than worthless ones, you will be my spokesman. It is they who must return to you; you must not return to them” (Jr 15:19).
False Prophecy in the Old Testament
False prophecy in the OT is best understood against the backgrounds of the classic test of a genuine prophet outlined in Dt 18:14–22, the various clashes between genuine prophets and their rivals, and the nature and purpose of prophecy.
As the Deuteronomy text clearly states, if a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the thing the prophet speaks does not materialize, the prophet is not a genuine spokesperson for the Lord (Dt 18:22). Set in a context describing Moses as the premier model of a prophet, the test commands attention as an absolute, unconditional test. When examined in light of the overall nature and purpose of prophecy and the experiences of genuine prophets, however, the Deuteronomy test requires careful application.
In the prophet Jeremiah’s vision at the potter’s house, for example, Jeremiah is given to understand that the word of the Lord through a prophet does not, strictly speaking, predict the future. Rather, the prophetic word provokes repentance as the condition for fulfillment of God’s purposes among the nations (Jr 18:5–11). Thus in a narrow sense the words of a true prophet may not come true. Jonah’s seemingly unconditional prediction of Nineveh’s destruction is the classic case in point.
It is in their role as a professional class and part of the leadership structure of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah that false prophets of the OT are most clearly observed. The false prophets consistently throw their support behind those who support them. Thus the genuine prophet Amos is compelled to bluntly state, “I was not a prophet or the son of a prophet’s son” (Am 7:14), while his contemporary Micah decries the prophets who give oracles for money in collusion with those who build Jerusalem by violent corruption (Mc 3:9–11). As Jeremiah’s clash with Hananiah makes clear, a prophet may make statements that seem to magnify the power of the Lord but which actually obscure the divine purpose (Jr 28).
Particularly instructive concerning the phenomenon of false prophecy is the account of Micaiah, one of the court prophets of King Ahab of Israel (1 Kg 22:1–28). As the account unfolds, it becomes apparent that even a corrupt king like Ahab can tell the truth from a lie (1 Kg 22:16). But given his investment in his idolatrous ambitions, including his support of hundreds of prophets who will tell him anything he wants to hear, Ahab finally succumbs to the lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets (1 Kg 22:22–23). This strange account may seem troubling in that the Lord seems to actively engage lying spirits and use a true prophet to deceive Ahab. In the final analysis, however, false prophecy in the OT is fueled by those who break faith with God’s promises and purposes. As Jeremiah observes, “The prophets prophesy falsely. . . . My people love it like this” (Jr 5:31).
Jesus and the Reversal of Jeremiah’s Curses
Jeremiah 1–29 contains numerous images of curses (wounds and sickness, no weddings or joy, etc.) that are reversed by Jesus Christ, as prophesied in Jr 30–33. For example, as part of the judgment on Judah, Jeremiah proclaims the end of joyful celebrations, especially the joyful sound of weddings (Jr 16:8–9; 25:10). In the Book of Comfort (Jr 30–33), however, God reverses the images of judgment as he describes the messianic future. The coming time of restoration will be one characterized by joyful singing and dancing, especially at weddings (Jr 30:19; 31:4, 7, 12, 13; 33:9–11). The messianic fulfillment is illustrated in Jn 2, when Jesus changes the water into wine. Jesus is at a wedding, and when the wine runs out, the joyful celebration is about to cease. Yet according to the prophets like Jeremiah, the Messiah will bring a time of joyful celebration, figuratively represented by weddings. Jesus creates the new wine in order to keep the joyful celebration going. Jeremiah’s images (joyful weddings, healing, etc.) are primarily figurative. Jesus, however, fulfills them both in a literal sense (actual physical healing, creating literal wine) and in a figurative sense (spiritual restoration and salvation, true inner joy).
Who Is Gog, and Where Is Magog?
In Ezk 38:2 God tells Ezekiel to prophesy against someone named Gog from the land of Magog. Gog is called the “chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.” The terms “Meshech” and “Tubal” show up in the literature of the ancient Assyrians and are identified with regions of what is now Turkey. Ezekiel 38:5–6 describes an alliance between Meshech/Tubal and five other nations. This alliance takes on a somewhat worldwide form, comprising seven nations from areas associated with north, south, east, and west. This coalition attacks Israel but is defeated by God.
The book of Revelation mentions Gog and Magog again in a similar context. Revelation 20:7–8 reads: “When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle.” Here in Revelation, Gog and Magog are used to represent nations from around the world. The terms are probably used similarly in Ezk 38.
Throughout history many Christian writers have tried to connect Gog to a people or person from their day and time. For example, in the fourth century AD some Christians claimed that Gog was the Goths. In the seventh century AD, Gog was the Arabs, and in the thirteenth century AD, it was the Mongols. Other writers then identified Gog as one of the popes or the Turks. In the twentieth century many popular writers claimed that Gog represented modern Russia and that Meshech stood for Moscow. This identification is highly unlikely and is rejected almost universally by scholars. Most OT scholars do not believe that Ezk 38–39 has anything to do with Russia or with Muslims (a current popular understanding).
The Four Kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7
In Dn 2, King Nebuchadnezzar has a troubling dream about a large statue composed of different materials. Daniel describes and interprets the dream for him, explaining that the statue represents four kingdoms. In Dn 7, Daniel himself is given a vision in a dream that involves four beasts. An angel explains to Daniel that “these huge beasts, four in number, are four kings who will rise from the earth” (7:17). Most scholars conclude that the two visions (Nebuchadnezzar’s and Daniel’s) describe the same four kingdoms. But which kingdoms are these? The first one is easy to identify because Daniel tells us it is the Babylonian kingdom. After that, things are trickier, and three different views of these kingdoms are possible. The chart represents a comparison of the two most popular views.
A third option for understanding the statue and the beasts is to view all four kingdoms as symbolic, representing kingdoms of the world in general. In this view “four” represents north, south, east, and west, or all the kingdoms of the world. The point would be that evil human kingdoms will succeed one another throughout history until God intervenes at the climax of history to establish his ultimate kingdom.
In addition, there are numerous similarities between the “arrogant horn” of Daniel’s fourth beast in Dn 7 and the beast/antichrist in Rv 13, thus connecting the vision of Dn 7 to the future events in Rv 13. At the end of the twentieth century, some writers speculated that the European Union fulfilled the “ten-horned beast” prophecy as a revival of the Roman Empire, but since membership in the EU has swelled beyond ten members to include twenty-seven members, the likelihood that it represents a “ten-horned beast” seems remote. Likewise, attempts to connect the United Nations with Daniel’s prophecy have not been convincing.
A COMPARISON OF THE TWO MAJOR TRADITIONAL VIEWS OF DANIEL 2 AND 7
| Man in Dn 2 | Beasts in Dn 7 | Traditional Evangelical View | Alternate View |
| Gold head | Lion | Babylon | Babylon/Assyria |
| Silver chest, arms | Bear | Medo-Persia | Media |
| Bronze belly, thighs | Leopard with four heads | Greece (Alexander the Great) | Persia |
| Clay and iron feet | Fourth beast | Rome/revived Roman Empire | Greece |
Prior to the rise of the Achaemenid Persian Empire in the mid-sixth century BC, the Persian homeland lay to the east of Mesopotamia, in and beyond the Zagros Mountains. The history of the Persians and their rulers prior to their emergence in biblical, Greek, and Mesopotamian history remains poorly understood, but probably they had come to the Iranian plateau from central Asia around 1000 BC, roughly the time of the emergence of monarchic Israel in the Levant.
The Achaemenid Empire overlapped with the exilic and postexilic periods of biblical history. As a political entity, the Persians appear in ancient Near Eastern history around 550 BC, when the Persian leader Cyrus II (“the Great”) defeated the Medes (another Iranian people to whom the Persians had been subject) and seized their capital at Ecbatana, along with their royal treasure. Cyrus then turned toward the territory of the Lydian (Greek) king Croesus in modern western Turkey, which he conquered with the fall of Sardis and the defeat of Croesus around 546 BC. Cyrus’s territorial gains in Anatolia would remain a part of the Persian Empire until the time of Alexander the Great.
Following this western campaign, which would set the stage for two centuries of Greco-Persian rivalry, Cyrus returned to Mesopotamia, where he marched against the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nabonidus, taking advantage of a falling out between Nabonidus and the inhabitants of Babylon (Nabonidus had controversially removed images of Marduk from their rightful place in Babylon). It is at this point that the history of the Persian Empire intersects dramatically with biblical history, for Cyrus’s capture of the capital Babylon in the fall of 539 BC came only half a century after the Neo-Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II had sacked Jerusalem and exiled the elite inhabitants of the southern kingdom of Judah to Mesopotamia, including a group that was brought to Babylon itself. The Hebrew Bible speaks fondly of Cyrus as the restorer of the Jewish people from exile. It was Cyrus, according to 2 Ch 36:23; Ezr 1:2–4, who mandated that a group of Judeans return to their homeland and reestablish their capital Jerusalem and the temple of their deity, Yahweh. Isaiah 45:1 speaks of Cyrus as Yahweh’s “anointed” and suggests a personal and intimate relationship between the king and the God of Israel. In terms of the biblical periodization of Israelite history, the edict of Cyrus marked the end of the exilic period and the beginning of what modern scholars term the “Persian period” of Israelite and Jewish history.
Cyrus was succeeded by his son Cambyses II, who conquered Egypt before his death in 522 BC. Darius succeeded Cambyses through a palace intrigue in which he emerged over Cyrus’s son Bardiya (also known as Smerdis or Gaumata). The circumstances of Darius’s succession remain unclear in several respects. He was not in the royal line, yet in his own monuments he insists that it was his rivals who were usurpers and that he was the rightful claimant of the throne. Under Darius (“the Great”), the Achaemenid Empire reached its greatest geographical extent. He organized the empire into twenty-two administrative districts, or “satrapies,” and built up a vast network of roads and cities. The lands of biblical Israel fell into a large satrapy known as “Beyond the River,” or “Trans-Euphrates” (see, e.g., Ezr 4:10). Darius is remembered in the Bible as renewing Cyrus’s order for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. The decree of Darius is represented in Ezr 6:1–15. As a result of his attention to the matter, the temple was completed during his reign, in 515 BC (Ezr 6:15). Daniel 5:31 portrays Darius (“the Mede,” not “the Persian”; see also Dn 9:1, which reaffirms Darius’s Median ethnicity while making him the son, not the father, of Ahasuerus/Xerxes), not Cyrus, as the conqueror of Babylon (though it is Belshazzar, not Nabonidus, who loses his kingdom).
Darius was succeeded by his son Xerxes, who in 481 BC led a vast army across the Bosphorus into Greece. He was turned back by a series of defeats and was assassinated in 465 BC. Neither Xerxes nor his successors managed to expand the empire beyond the achievement of Darius. The Bible mentions Xerxes (Ahasuerus) at Ezr 4:5–6 and alludes to him at Dn 11:2. Artaxerxes appears in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (e.g., Ezr 4:7; Neh 2:1); however, the identification of this figure is uncertain, whether he is Artaxerxes I (r. 464–424 BC), Artaxerxes II (r. 405–359 BC), or even Artaxerxes III (r. 359–338 BC). Moreover, it is unclear from ancient versions whether the king in the book of Esther is meant to be Xerxes (Ahasuerus) or Artaxerxes I (so the LXX).
The Achaemenid Empire fell in 330 BC, during the reign of Darius III, whom Alexander the Great defeated decisively at Gaugamela in 331 BC.
Interpreting the Vision in Daniel 9:24–27
Building on the seventy-years motif (Dn 9:2; cf. Jr 25:11–12), the angel Gabriel reveals to Daniel that the Lord has decreed “seventy weeks” (Dn 9:24). The exact identification of this phrase is open to interpretation. “Weeks” is literally “sevens,” perhaps indicating seventy seven-year time periods, according to some interpreters. But the purpose of the “seventy ‘sevens’” is to finalize judgment on sin, to atone for sin and transgression, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to fulfill all the prophetic word, and to anoint the most holy. If we take it to refer to seventy periods of time, such as weeks, the periodization comes to the foreground, rather than the length of time. The reading of the first period raises the question of the number of the periods. Are there two or three? It is possible to read the text in two ways: 62 + 7 periods and 1 period, or 7, 62, and 1 periods.
The Hebrew text raises some other issues that are not so transparent in English. First, what decree initiates the beginning of the restoration of Jerusalem (Dn 9:25)? Opinions differ on when this took place: 596 BC (Jeremiah’s writing), 538 BC (Cyrus’s decree to restore the temple in Jerusalem), or 445 BC (Nehemiah’s permission to restore the walls of Jerusalem). Second, what is the meaning of “Anointed One” (Dn 9:25–26)? Interpreters have connected the Anointed One with Cyrus, the antichrist, a Roman emperor, and Jesus Christ. Third, who will “make a firm covenant with many for one week” (Dn 9:27)? Some hold that the Messiah is the subject of the sentence, but others see here a reference to a hostile foreign ruler, such as Antiochus, Titus, or the antichrist. Indeed, Antiochus and Titus brought an end to sacrifices and offerings and set up pagan symbols in the temple court. Opposition to the Lord is an act of “abomination of desolation” (Dn 9:27).
It is likely that the ambiguity in the expression translated as “week” and in the number of periods, as well as the many other ambiguous expressions, projects a cartoonlike world that suggests a divine reality that cannot be captured by human interpretation.
The book of Daniel, like Revelation, has in view the eternal and complete establishment of God’s kingdom, the glory of the saints, and the complete subjugation of the nations of this world. While the details of the prophecy defy a unified explanation, the purpose of the revelation was to encourage Daniel and the book’s audience that the Lord purposed to bring sin and sinners to their just deserts and to explain that, while the opposition to God’s purposes would increase, the Lord planned to bring it to an end. God’s redemption is an everlasting redemption.
A literary style closely connected to OT prophetic literature is called apocalyptic. While OT prophecy typically uses colorful figures of speech and vivid imagery, apocalyptic literature uses highly symbolic, sometimes bizarre imagery (at least from our perspective) that goes beyond the normal figurative language of the prophets. For example, normal OT prophecy compares God to a dangerous lion. That analogy is fairly easy to comprehend, for we are familiar with lions. Daniel, however, has a vision of a leopard with four heads and four wings, a creature we are not familiar with. Everything in this vision is highly symbolic (e.g., the four heads probably represent the four generals who split up Alexander the Great’s empire). There are a number of other typical characteristics of apocalyptic literature: (1) an angel gives an explanation of the vision; (2) the vision is related to the unfolding of world history; and (3) the ultimate victory of God over his enemies in the future is stressed (i.e., final deliverance for God’s people). This apocalyptic style occurs in the OT books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, as well as in the NT book of Revelation. This style is also used in several nonbiblical ancient Jewish religious books (1–2 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2–3 Baruch).
The prophetic books in the OT comprise the four Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel), followed by the twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi). The terms “major” and “minor” have nothing to do with importance or emphasis but rather relate to size—Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel are longer than the other twelve prophetic books.
Traditionally, Christians have read and studied each of the twelve Minor Prophets separately. That is, interpreters usually assume that each book is a stand-alone unit with an independent message. Scholars today, however, are taking a second look at this approach. While they still believe that each Minor Prophet is quite coherent by itself and certainly can be understood in isolation from the others, more and more scholars are noting numerous connections among the twelve individual books called the Minor Prophets.
A number of themes run through the Book of the Twelve. They focus on the character and actions of God. The “day of the LORD” is a frequent theme (Hs 1:5; 2:16–18; Jl 2:31; Am 5:18–20; Ob 15; Mc 2:4; Hab 3:16; Zph 1:7–16; Hg 2:23; Zch 14:1; Mal 4:1). Likewise, the Book of the Twelve both opens (Hs 1–3) and ends (Mal 1:2) by stressing the love of God. Numerous smaller themes or catchwords often tie the books together. For example, Jl 3:16 declares “the LORD will roar from Zion,” and the following book, Amos, opens with “the LORD roars from Zion” (Am 1:2). Amos ends with judgment on Edom (Am 9:12), and the following book, Obadiah, stresses the destruction of Edom.
The OT uses the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with his people (Is 54:5–8). This metaphor captures the intimate character of the relationship that God desires to have with his people. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in two ways. First, marriage is a relationship in which knowledge is the most intimate. A spouse can see many of the flaws that are hidden from others. Thus, each spouse must accept and love the other for who that person is, in spite of his or her imperfections. Second, the depth and passion of the expressions of love are most intimate in marriage. Consequently, there is no greater pain than that caused by unfaithfulness to this covenant.
Sadly, as the story of the OT unfolds, God’s “wife” betrays him. How so? His people worship idols in their hearts (Ezk 14:1–5). Because God is jealous for the exclusive love of his people, idolatry is spiritual unfaithfulness. God wants both the allegiance and the affection of their hearts to be reserved exclusively for him. The people continue the formalities of worship, but their hearts have turned away from God. The book of Hosea illustrates the sense of betrayal that God feels when his people are spiritually unfaithful. God tells Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him. Subsequently, she leaves Hosea for one lover after another. This story is intended to give God’s people a vivid picture of how painful their spiritual betrayal of him is. His heart is crushed by the rebellious and idolatrous condition of his people. Hosea’s wife ends up on the market as a prostitute, and God tells him to buy her back and love her again.
Already in the pentateuchal legal texts, the sin of forsaking Yahweh, the God of Israel, to serve and worship other gods is analogized to prostitution (Ex 34:15; Lv 17:7; 20:5–6; Nm 15:39; Dt 31:16). But the analogy becomes especially pronounced in the books of the prophets, which contain over half of the OT references to prostitution. Speaking through Jeremiah, God says to Israel, “Under every green tree you lie down like a prostitute” (Jr 2:20). In idolatry, Israel does not even blush but instead is brazen as a prostitute (Jr 3:1–3). Ezekiel portrays Israel and Judah as prostitutes who lavish their favors on any gods who pass by (Ezk 16:15). Indeed, God complains that Israel has acted even worse than a prostitute, not even charging for her services (Ezk 16:31–34). Hosea, who is commanded by God to marry an adulterous woman in an extravagant act of love, mirroring God’s own love for the Israelites, buys and redeems his wife from her prostitution (Hs 3:1–5).
The OT begins with the value of human life and the care of the created order (Gn 1–2). Human beings are made in the image of God. All people, therefore, have worth and potential as God’s representatives and are to steward the creation. The breadth of the OT’s ethical concerns is impressive: it addresses personal issues, like sexuality, the use of money, and honesty in the workplace, as well as socioeconomic and political matters, such as oppression of the poor, corruption in government, and war. This wide purview of moral matters allows for different perspectives on many topics. One example is the treatment of the poor. Whereas Proverbs locates the blame for some misfortune in laziness or lasciviousness, the prophets denounce the systemic injustice that perpetuates the exploitation of the vulnerable, and the law legislates measures to alleviate the needs of the poor, widows and the fatherless, and resident aliens. Each view contributes to a fuller understanding of the problem and its treatment.
In the OT, the Israelites, the chosen people of God, are to be an ethical light before the world. They are to be God’s channel of blessing—both spiritual and material (Gn 12)—and their society a model of what God wants of all nations (Dt 4:5–8). The Historical Books chart the failure to live up to that role, and the prophetic literature is full of scathing denunciation for the ills of Israelite society. The prophets also emphasize that it is impossible to separate ethical life from worship of God, something Jesus and the NT writers echo.
The perennial challenge for those who embrace the OT as Scripture is ascertaining the best way to appropriate the text for moral life today. On the one hand, it contains material many find objectionable. There are accounts of lying, political dishonesty, adultery, murder, and rape—even by some of the most respected leaders of the people of God. In these cases, it is important to distinguish the biblical portrayal of such acts from a prescription to emulate those behaviors and attitudes. Much of what is described is offered as negative examples to avoid. On the other hand, some Christian theological systems are reluctant to appeal to the OT, because the theocracy that was Israel no longer exists.
The way forward is to appreciate that the OT presents enduring values that transcend the centuries. The law is a paradigm. It establishes how an ancient people were to incarnate the ethical standards of God in every sphere of personal, social, and religious life. Those principles necessarily take a different shape in the modern world. The OT also depicts the lives of godly and wise people in its narratives, proverbs, and prophetic books. It predicts as well a kingdom of worldwide abundance and peace. The OT, in other words, is an ethical guide in the present and provides an ethical hope for the future.
“The Righteous One Will Live by His Faith”
The Hebrew noun translated “faith” in Hab 2:4 could also be rendered as “faithfulness” (see the CSB footnote). To the Hebrew mind no dichotomy existed between faith and faithfulness. The truly righteous person is the one whose faith is demonstrated in faithful deeds.
The NT quotes Hab 2:4 three times. In Galatians and Romans, Paul uses Hab 2:4 as a foundational verse for explaining justification by faith. In Gl 3:11 Paul uses it to demonstrate that salvation is not achieved by keeping the works of the law but is entered into only on the basis of genuine faith. In Rm 1:17 Paul emphasizes that the believer’s salvation, acquired by faith, must be lived out in faith. The writer of Hebrews (Heb 10:35–38) points out that the sure coming of Christ for his faithful ones makes living by faith a categorical necessity.
The destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians (722 BC) was followed by the destruction of the southern kingdom of Judah by Babylonians (587/586 BC), when the glory of God departed from Jerusalem (Ezk 10–11), and most of the population was carried off into exile. But then the Lord began to unfold his plan of restoration. Cyrus, king of Persia, overran the Babylonians, and in 538 BC he decreed that exiled people like the Israelites could return home. In several waves over the next one hundred years or so, the shattered Israelite exiles returned back to the promised land. This is the context in which the postexilic prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) wrote.
With Israel back in the land, some people might have thought that the great time of restoration predicted so often by the preexilic prophets had begun. Numerous things, however, point out that the great deliverance remained in the future. Yes, Israel was back in the land, but there was no Davidic king on the throne, and the Persians continued to dominate Israel politically (a fact stressed throughout the postexilic literature). Also important is that even after the Israelites rebuilt the destroyed temple, the glory of God did not return to the temple. In contrast to the spectacular entry of God’s presence into the Solomonic temple described in 1 Kg 8:10–11, nothing at all is mentioned about the presence of God in the rebuilt temple during the time of the postexilic prophets.
Indeed, the postexilic prophets proclaim that the situation created by the struggling group of Israelites back in the land does not represent the great time of restoration and deliverance predicted by the preexilic prophets or a return to the way things were under the blessings of Deuteronomy. They also underscore that the terrible sins of their forefathers should be seen as lessons, exhorting the current community to follow God in serious obedience. Yet the postexilic prophets do proclaim that the time of restoration has begun to a limited extent. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi tell the ragtag nation of Israelites who have returned to the land that they live in between the beginning of the restoration and the ultimate consummation, which is still future. These prophets announce that the postexilic community is living in an interim time, and they should worship and serve the Lord faithfully as they await the coming of the Messiah, who will actually bring about the glorious restoration prophesied by the preexilic prophets.
The Kingdom of God in the Old Testament
The kingdom of God is a major theme in the Bible. While the theme is most fully developed in the NT, its origin is the OT, where the emphasis falls on God’s kingship. God is king of Israel (Ex 15:18; Nm 23:21; Dt 33:5; Is 43:15) and of all the earth (2 Kg 19:15; Pss 29:10; 99:1–4; Is 6:5; Jr 46:18). Juxtaposed to the concept of God’s present reign as king are references to a day when God will become king over his people (Is 24:23; 33:22; 52:7; Zph 3:15; Zch 14:9). This emphasis on God’s kingship continues throughout Judaism and takes on special significance in Jewish apocalypticism and its anticipation of the kingdom of God in the age to come. Only at the end of the age will the kingdom of God come. This idea of God’s kingdom is further developed throughout the NT.
In Mal 3:1 God promises to send his messenger to prepare the way before him. Then in Mal 4:5 God declares that he will send Elijah just prior to the coming day of the Lord. The NT clearly associates John the Baptist with both of these prophecies, although there is a bit of confusion about the connection. Matthew, Mark, and Luke associate the ministry of John the Baptist with the messenger of Mal 3:1 (Mt 11:10; Mk 1:2; Lk 7:27). In addition, Jesus appears to identify John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy of Mal 4:5 (Mt 11:11–14; Mk 9:11–13). John’s connection to Elijah in Mal 4:5 is so obvious that people ask him if he is Elijah (Jn 1:21), to which he replies in the negative, a truly puzzling response for us. Is he or isn’t he Elijah? The answer to this problem may lie in Lk 1:17, where an angel of the Lord tells Zechariah that his son (John the Baptist) “will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah . . . to make ready for the Lord a prepared people.” So John the Baptist apparently fulfills the Mal 4:5 prophecy in that he embodies the “spirit and power” of Elijah. Therefore, Christ can identify him with the Elijah prophecy, while John himself can deny that he is literally Elijah.
Alexander’s Successors and the Maccabees
After Alexander’s death in 323 BC, his empire was divided among his four generals, the Diadochi (“successors”). Most significant to Palestine were Ptolemy I, whose forces held Egypt and North Africa, and Seleucus Nicator (Seleucus I), whose armies secured Syria, Asia Minor, and Babylonia.
The Ptolemaic kings governed Palestine from 323 to 198 BC, allowing the Jews to govern themselves and observe their religious customs. In 198 BC, however, Antiochus III, ruler of the Seleucids, defeated his Ptolemaic rival and annexed Palestine.
Antiochus III continued the Ptolemies’ policy of religious toleration. In 175 BC, however, Antiochus IV “Epiphanes” (“the manifest god”) acceded to power, which began the most significant crisis of Second Temple Judaism before Pompey’s invasion and the onset of Roman rule. Antiochus IV, along with others in Jerusalem, supported the radical Hellenization of Jerusalem. He outlawed Judaism, made pagan worship practices compulsory, and brought in foreign mercenaries to maintain order. An altar to the Syrian god Zeus was erected in the temple. By 167 BC, animals forbidden by Mosaic law were sacrificed on the altar, and prostitution was sanctioned in the temple precincts.
A priestly family named Hasmonean after one of its ancestors, consisting of a man named Mattathias and his five sons, raised a revolt that proved successful after a severe struggle. (This family was also called Maccabees—from the nickname “Maccabeus” [“the Hammer”] given to Judas, one of Mattathias’s sons.)
Mattathias and his sons rallied a guerrilla army, including at first the Hasideans (Hasidim), waging war against the Syrians and attacking Jews who had abandoned Torah observance. Antiochus IV revoked the prohibitions against Torah observance. Judas Maccabeus and his revolutionaries defeated the Syrians, recaptured the temple, and purged it of pagan trappings in 164 BC.
The Hasmonean dynasty degenerated through a series of unfit kings. The political aims of the Hasmoneans alienated many former supporters, including the Hasideans, who split into the Pharisees and the Essenes. The aristocratic supporters of the Hasmonean priest-kings became the Sadducees. Toward the end of the Hasmonean dynasty the Pharisees basically dominated the country.
The Hasmonean dynasty ended in civil strife. In 67 BC, a war broke out between two brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, each fighting for the title of high priest and king. Both appealed to Rome to settle the issue, effectively inviting the Roman general Pompey to conquer Jerusalem in 63 BC and bring Judea under direct Roman administration.
The Herodian dynasty significantly shaped the Jewish world of Jesus and the apostles, playing a leading role in the political and cultural life of the Second Temple period for four generations (see family tree on p. 1789).
The Roman senate appointed Herod the Great, an Idumean by ethnicity (born around 73 BC), “King of the Jews” in 40 BC. At the height of his political power, he exercised tyrannical control over his kingdom. Although most of his Jewish subjects detested him, there were some, the Herodians, who supported his dynasty (Mk 3:6; 12:13). He transformed his modest realm into a showpiece of Greco-Roman culture, the Jerusalem temple being one of the wonders of the Roman world (Mk 13:1).
Herod the Great is the villain in the story of the Magi (Mt 2:1–18). Paranoid at being overthrown by rivals, he had lashed out at numerous opponents, even putting members of his family to death on suspicion of treason. The massacre of the innocents at Bethlehem is consistent with this troubled period of his life. Herod’s death in 4 BC provides the latest possible date for Jesus’s birth.
Herod the Great’s son Archelaus is mentioned once in the NT in connection with the holy family’s return from Egypt. Fearful of living under his jurisdiction (he had a reputation for brutality), Joseph returns to Nazareth in Galilee (Mt 2:22; Archelaus ruled Idumea, Judea, and Samaria, but Galilee was in the territory of Herod Antipas). Augustus Caesar banished Archelaus in AD 6 for ineptitude and oppression.
Herod Antipas, another son of Herod the Great, became tetrarch of Galilee (Lk 3:1) and is the one who imprisoned and executed John the Baptist (Mk 6:14–29). When Jesus’s fame as a preacher and healer spreads, Antipas is perplexed (Lk 9:7) and wonders if John the Baptist has been raised from the dead (Mt 14:1–2). Jesus calls him “that fox” (Lk 13:32). Antipas plays a role in the trial of Jesus, egging him on to perform a sign and mocking him (Lk 23:7–12). Following his ill-advised attempt to gain the title “king,” the emperor Caligula banished Antipas in AD 39.
The territory of Herod Philip (Lk 3:1), a third son of Herod the Great, is the venue for Peter’s confession (Mk 8:27–30) and the transfiguration (Mk 9:2–9). Philip married Salome, who dances before Herod Antipas and requests the head of John the Baptist (Mk 6:22–28). Philip died childless in AD 34.
Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great, persecuted the early church. He executed the apostle James and imprisoned the apostle Peter (Ac 12:1–4). Luke claims an angel of the Lord struck him down (Ac 12:19–23).
Agrippa II, a great-grandson, appears in the NT, along with his sister Bernice, in connection with Paul’s incarceration and defense before the Roman governor Festus (Ac 25:13–26:32). Agrippa tried unsuccessfully to stem the rush to rebellion in AD 66 and aided the Romans in crushing the Jewish revolt (AD 66–73). He died around AD 100 and was the last Herod to exercise rule over a portion of Palestine.
Jesus’s main message is that the kingdom of God has come near (Mk 1:15; Mt 4:17; cf. Lk 4:43). The other themes of Jesus’s teaching are to be understood in light of his teaching on the kingdom. They expound on the quality of life in, and the character of, God’s kingdom.
Jesus’s claim that God’s kingdom has come near proves so radical that not only do the protectors of Judaism (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.) quickly recognize that his message contradicts theirs, but even Jesus’s own followers struggle to understand. Because of this, much of Jesus’s teaching on the kingdom comes through replies to questions and in parabolic illustrations (e.g., Mk 4). Even John the Baptist gets confused and asks about Jesus’s mission. Jesus replies by pointing to the effects of the kingdom’s presence (Mt 11:4–6; Lk 7:22).
When Jesus uses the phrase “kingdom of God/heaven,” he refers not to a political area or realm but to the reality of God’s renewed presence among people. For Jesus, God’s kingdom has nothing to do with Israel’s borders; nor does it refer to the restoration of a Davidic kingdom in the geographical and political sense. Rather, Jesus uses the phrase to explain that God has stepped into history to make his presence known for the purpose of redeeming all his creation from the consequences of the fall. Put differently, in Jesus’s teaching, the kingdom of God is the sphere where God rules and shows his glory.
According to Jesus, the kingdom of God is already here. Jesus has inaugurated it! The age to come has broken into the present age. God is making his presence felt now. At the same time, present experience clearly evidences that the kingdom of God is not here in full. Evil still exists; the old age is still here. We live between the times—in the tension of the already/not yet. The promised age to come has already begun, but is not here in full.
In the Gospels, it is Jesus’s custom to teach. Day after day he teaches—in synagogues and in the temple, on the sea and beside it, on plains and on mountains, from his hometown to Jerusalem. Most people are astonished at his teachings, so full of authority and wisdom; but many, including his own disciples, frequently fail to comprehend them. On one occasion, when his disciples do understand his teaching, the majority reject it and simply walk away (Jn 6:60–66). Once, Peter even goes so far as to rebuke Jesus for his teaching (Mk 8:31–32). While some glorify Jesus when they hear him (Lk 4:15), others accuse him of being demon possessed (Jn 7:20) and seek to kill him (Mk 11:18; Lk 23:4–5). Although there are exceptions (e.g., Jn 3:2), many of the Jewish leaders are vexed by such extraordinary teachings from such a man who “hasn’t been trained” (Jn 7:15). In response, Jesus professes that his education has come directly from God (Jn 7:16).
There are at least six methods Jesus uses to teach. He teaches (1) by using parables, (2) by asking and answering questions, (3) by commenting on Scripture, (4) by proclaiming beatitudes and leveling woes, (5) by contextualizing his messages, and (6) by performing miracles. Jesus teaches many things through parables both to instruct and to condemn (see Mk 4:10–20). He bases some parables on interpersonal relationships (such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan) and others on agrarian and economic themes (such as the parables of the sower and of the talents). Jesus also educates others by asking and answering questions (e.g., Mt 22:21; Mk 3:4; 12:28–30; Lk 20:44) or by commenting on Scripture (e.g., from Is 61 in Lk 4:16–21; from the Pentateuch in Mt 5:21–48). Furthermore, Jesus teaches by declaring blessings and woes (Lk 6:20–26; see also Mt 5:1–11; 23:1–39) or by using objects around him (e.g., Herod’s temple in Jn 2:18–21; Jacob’s well in Jn 4; a barren fig tree in Mt 21:19–22). Finally, Jesus uses his miracles as lessons: he heals the paralytic to teach others that he has authority to forgive sins (Mk 2:10–11) and follows an exorcism with a lesson on the kingdom of God (Lk 11:14–20). The praise that Jesus gives to Mary of Bethany may indicate his view of his teaching: she has chosen what is better, the only thing necessary, that which will not be taken from her—the opportunity to sit at his feet and listen to his teachings (Lk 10:42).
Although Jesus has many followers, he selects twelve key disciples whom he appoints and designates apostles. “Apostle” (Gk apostolos) means a “messenger” sent out with a commission. Jesus’s choice of twelve is reminiscent of the twelve tribes of Israel and suggests that Jesus views his mission as the restoration or reconstitution of the people of God, with himself as its leader. Jesus says as much when he promises the Twelve that they will sit on thrones in his kingdom, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk 22:30). Here is a brief description of the Twelve.
Simon Peter. Simon Peter is always named first in the lists of disciples, and he often serves as their representative and spokesperson. Jesus calls Simon to be a disciple and nicknames him “Peter” (Gk Petros; Aramaic Cephas; Jn 1:42), meaning a “rock” or “stone.” Known for his boldness and an impetuous spirit, Peter is the first to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (Mt 16:13–20), but later he denies that he even knows Jesus (Mt 26:69–75). After the resurrection, Jesus restores Peter to a position of leadership (Jn 21:15–19), and in the book of Acts, Peter appears as a key leader in the early church.
Andrew, Brother of Simon Peter. Andrew is originally a follower of John the Baptist, until John points Jesus (the “Lamb of God”) out to him. Andrew brings his brother Simon to meet Jesus (Jn 1:40–42). He is known as the disciple who keeps bringing others to Jesus: his own brother, the boy with the loaves and fishes (Jn 6:8–9), and, together with Philip, a group of Greeks who want to meet Jesus (Jn 12:20–22). Andrew and Peter are from Bethsaida (Jn 1:44) but operate their fishing business in Capernaum (Mk 1:29).
James, Son of Zebedee. Like Peter and Andrew, James and his brother John are fishermen who follow the call of Jesus (Mt 4:21–22). Jesus nicknames them Boanerges, meaning “Sons of Thunder” (Mk 3:17), perhaps because of their volatile personalities (Lk 9:54). James is arrested and executed by Herod Agrippa I; he is the first apostle to die as a martyr (Ac 12:1–2).
John, Brother of James. John, James, and Peter make up the inner circle, Jesus’s closest disciples who accompany him at key points in his ministry: the raising of Jairus’s daughter (Mk 5:37), the transfiguration (Mk 9:2), and the garden of Gethsemane (Mk 14:33). John is traditionally identified as the Beloved Disciple and the author of the Fourth Gospel, the letters of 1–3 John, and the book of Revelation.
Philip. Philip, who is from Bethsaida, introduces Nathanael to Jesus (Jn 1:45). Outside of the lists of disciples, he appears only in a few scenes in John (Jn 6:5–7; 12:21–22; 14:8–9).
Bartholomew. Bartholomew means “Son of Tolmai” and may be another name for Nathanael (Jn 1:45).
Matthew, the Tax Collector. The Gospel of Matthew identifies this disciple as the tax collector called “Levi” by Mark and Luke (Mt 9:9; Mk 2:14; Lk 5:27). He is traditionally believed to be the author of the Gospel that bears his name.
Thomas. Also known as Didymus (meaning “Twin”), Thomas is best known as the disciple who doubts Jesus’s resurrection until he sees and touches Jesus himself (Jn 20:24–29). Church tradition claims Thomas later evangelized eastward into India.
James the Son of Alphaeus. Sometimes identified as “James the younger” of Mk 15:40, he may be the brother of Matthew/Levi since both of their fathers are named Alphaeus (Mk 2:14).
Thaddaeus, Lebbaeus, or Judas the Son of James. This name is the most disputed of the Twelve. Matthew and Mark refer to Thaddaeus (some manuscripts say “Lebbaeus”). Luke instead has Judas the son of James, which could be another name for the same person.
Simon the Zealot. “Zealot” comes from an Aramaic term meaning “Zealous One.” It is unclear if Simon is zealous for the law of Judaism or whether he is a former member of the revolutionary movement known as the Zealots.
Judas Iscariot, Who Betrayed Jesus. “Iscariot” probably means “Man from Kerioth” (a region of Judea) and is a family name (Jn 6:71). The Fourth Gospel asserts that Judas, as treasurer, pilfers the group’s money even before he betrays Jesus (Jn 12:6).
The word “Sabbath” comes from a Hebrew word meaning to “rest” or “cease” (from work). The principle of a Sabbath rest has its roots in the creation account. God creates the heavens and the earth in six days and then rests on the seventh, blessing it and declaring it to be holy (Gn 2:2). The command to rest on the Sabbath first appears in Scripture after the exodus from Egypt, when the Israelites are forbidden to gather manna on the Sabbath (Ex 16:21–30). The official enactment of the command comes through Moses at Mount Sinai. The fourth of the Ten Commandments is to “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex 20:8–11; Dt 5:12–15). No work is to be done on that day—either by human or by animal. All are to rest. The penalty for work is death (Ex 31:14; Nm 15:32–36).
As a faithful Jew, Jesus keeps the Sabbath and attends Sabbath synagogue services (Lk 4:16). Yet he comes into frequent conflict with the religious leaders over legalism attached to its observance. When criticized because his disciples pick grain on the Sabbath, he points to David’s example of eating consecrated bread when he and his men were in need (1 Sm 21:1–6). The Sabbath, Jesus says, was made for human beings and is intended for human benefit rather than burden (Mt 12:1–14; Mk 2:23–3:6; Lk 6:1–11). Jesus also heals on the Sabbath, since the alleviation of human suffering takes precedence over legalistic observances (Lk 13:10–17; 14:1–6; Jn 5:1–18; 9:1–41). Ultimately, he declares himself to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28), going so far as to assert that the Father works on the Sabbath and so must he (Jn 5:17).
The apostle Paul maintains that the law has been fulfilled in Christ and that faith in Christ, rather than legalistic observance, makes one right with God (Rm 3:28; Gl 2:16; 3:1–3). Gentiles therefore need not be circumcised, keep OT dietary laws, or observe the Sabbath day, since these are merely shadows of the reality—which is Christ himself (Col 2:16–17; cf. Gl 4:9–11). While the principle of Sabbath rest—setting aside special times for rest, worship, and reflection—remains an essential activity for those created in the image of God, for Paul the specific command to rest on the seventh day is no longer binding for believers. It is rather a matter of personal conviction (Rm 14:5).
Discipleship in the New Testament
In the Great Commission, Jesus commands his disciples to make disciples. But what is discipleship? Christians weren’t the only ones to make disciples in the ancient world. For instance, John the Baptist had disciples (e.g., Mt 9:14; Lk 7:18–19; Jn 1:35–37; Ac 19:1–3), as did the Pharisees (e.g., Mt 22:16; Mk 2:18; Jn 9:28–29). Moreover, in the NT world many philosophical schools, such as the Sophists and Stoics, had disciples. Within all of these groups, discipleship primarily involved imitation, following and adhering to the example of a god or master teachers or both.
Christian discipleship also called for imitation. According to Jesus, as the teacher is, so should the disciple be also (Mt 10:25; cf. Lk 6:40). Imitating him, however, calls for a willingness to deny self, to forsake possessions, to abandon loved ones, and to suffer persecution (e.g., Mt 8:18–23; 16:24–26; Lk 14:26–27, 33; cf. Jn 6:60–66). Paul also calls disciples to a life of imitation (e.g., 1 Co 4:16; 11:1; Eph 5:1; Php 3:17). According to Paul, discipleship requires imitation in attitude as well as in action, by cultivating virtues such as humility and love as well as enacting selfless service (Rm 15:2–3; 2 Co 8:9; Php 2:1–11). Similarly, the author of Hebrews urges the disciples to emulate the exemplars of faithful endurance (Heb 6:12; 11:1–12:1; 13:7).
The imitation motif especially occurs in contexts of suffering (1 Th 1:6–7; 2:14). For instance, Peter points believers to the example of Christ’s suffering (1 Pt 2:21–23). In fact, God uses afflictions to disciple his children (Heb 12:7–13) and works suffering for good so the disciples of Christ may be conformed to his image (see Rm 8:17–29).