Value added?

For any who have these volumes, please help me with finding out if the New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis is worth the money if I have BDAG/HALOT, and other resources?

Is there similar products that maybe I already have that compares? What will this resource give me over the others?

Thanks!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

You might find the discussion at https://community.logos.com/forums/p/12198/95762.aspx a good starting point for this

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921937#Comment_921937

You might find the discussion at https://community.logos.com/forums/p/12198/95762.aspx a good starting point for this

I get lost sometimes with the Acronyms, but this is the product I am asking about:

https://www.logos.com/product/129798/new-international-dictionary-of-theology-and-exegesis-old-and-new-testament

Not clear if that is the same as referred to in the discussion you referenced.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921947#Comment_921947

Basically, BDAG and HALOT are going to give you short definitions for each word in every context it is used. A theological dictionary is going to give you a long explanation of each word in different contexts and how those meanings are derived. The theological dictionary may have less words, but it is going to give much more information.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921947#Comment_921947

this is the product I am asking about:

https://www.logos.com/product/129798/new-international-dictionary-of-theology-and-exegesis-old-and-new-testament

Not clear if that is the same as referred to in the discussion you referenced.

Yes, but only somewhat. You link to a bundle comprised of VanGemeren's OT and Silva's NT dictionaries. In the thread referenced, only the NT dictionaries are discussed - and the prior version of NIDNTT authored by Colin Brown

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921960#Comment_921960

אֶרֶץ in HALOT:

אֶרֶץ (about 2400 ×), Sam.M59 ʾāreṣ: Sec. αρς (Brönno 125): MHb., Ug. arṣ, also earth-god (UT p. 544), Ph. Mo. DISO 25; Akk. erṣetu, OAkk. arṣatu; Arm. (→ BArm.) אַרְקָא and אַרְעָא; OSArb. ʾrḍ, Arb. ʾarḍ, Tigr. (Wb. 360a) ʾard (d !): הָאָרֶץ, (BL 263m, Pal. hāreṣ Beer-M. §22, 3a), אָֽרֶץ, locv. אַרְצָה and אָ֫רְצָה, (also in cs.; BL 527n, 528t :: Beer-M. §22, 3c) Ug. arṣh: אַרְצְכָ/צֶֽךָ, אֲרָצֹ‍(וֹ)ת, אַרְצוֹת, אַרְצֹתָם; fem., GK §122k; Rost Fschr. Procksch 130ff: —1. ground, earth, בְּתוֹךְ הָאָרֶץ in the ground 2C 324 (Rudolph, Sept. הָעִיר); אַרְצָה on the ground (humi) with הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה Gn 182 and oft., with נָפַל 4414, with קָדַד Ex 348, with שִׁחֵת Gn 389, 1913b; חִלֵּל לָאָ׳ down to the ground Ps 747 8940; especially clay (Kelso §2) Ju 637-40, בַּעֲלִיל לָאָ׳ (→ Kelso §93f) Ps 127; —2. piece of ground Gn 2315 Ex 2310; —3. territory, country: אֶ׳ מִצְרַיִם and אֶ׳ כְּנַעַן Gn 4713; אֶ׳ יְהוּדָה Am 712, אֶ׳ יִשְׂרָאֵל 1S 1319, אֶ׳ הָאֱמֹרִי 210, אֶ׳ פְּלִשְׁתִּים Zeph 25; אֶ׳ חַיִּים Ps 2713 1169, my (Y.’s) land Jr 27 1618 etc.; pl. regions, districts 1C 132 (אַרְצוֹת יִשְׂרָ׳, → Delekat VT 14:20); countries: אַרְצוֹת הַגּוֹיִם Is 3718 עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת (Seeligmann 8729) Ezr 91, גּוֹיֵי הָאֲ׳ 2C 3213, אֱלֹהֵי הָאֲ׳ 2K 1835, מַלְכֵי הָאֲ׳ Ezr 97, מַמְלְכוֹת הָאֲ׳ earthly kingdoms 2C 128; —4. the whole of the land, the earth: אֶ׳ = הַיַּבָּשָׁה Gn 110, the whole earth Am 88f (Maag 127) בָּאָ׳ on earth Pr 1131 (Sept. μόλις, → Gemser 56, 112); הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָ׳ the whole world Gn 21.4a, older אֶ׳ וְשָׁמַיִם Gn 24b Ps 14813 † (Hartmann SchwThU 30:221ff); בֵּין הָאָ׳ וּבֵין־הַשָּׁ׳ = in the air (only MHb. JArm. and NHb. use אָוֵיר < ἀήρ, Syr. ʾāʾar, Mnd. ʾayar (MdD 14a) Zech 59; —5. תַּחְתִּיּוֹת אֶ׳ depths of the earth Is 4423 Ps 13915 תַּ׳ הָאָ׳ 6310, אֶ׳ תַּחְתִּיּוֹת Ezk 2620 3218.24 and אֶ׳ תַּחְתִּית 3114.16.18, > אֶ׳ underworld (|| שְׁאוֹל, שַׁחַת) Ex 1512 Jr 1713 (rd. וְסוּרֶיךָ, → כתב 6 :: Rudolph) Jon 27 Ps 2230 (rd. יְשֵׁנֵי) 7120 Sir 519, → Gunkel Schöpfung 181; Akk. Schrader Keilins. 636; Tallqvist Totenwelt 8ff; AHw. 245; Ug. Driver Myths 135b; —2S 234 rd. מַאֲרִץ (ארץ); Ps 127 cj. חָרֻץ (Driver Glosses 14778 :: Kelso §94) 163 → Comm.; Jb 3413 and 3712 אַרְצָה rd. אַרְצֹה; 3713 rd. מַלֵּא רְצוֹנוֹ; Is 114 and (?) Qoh 58 (→ יתרוֹן) rd. עָרִץ.

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921963#Comment_921963

אֶרֶץ in NIDOTTE:

אֶרֶץ (ʾereṣ), nom. fem., earth, land (#824).
ANE Akk. erṣetu; Ugar. ʾrṣ cf. TDOT 1:388–92.
OT Occurring some 2505×, אֶרֶץ has a broad range of meaning, from the whole earth, through particular countries, especially the land of Israel, local districts, the soil, to the ground inside a tent (Josh 7:21). Theologically we will concentrate on the two dominant senses: the earth and the land of Israel.
A. The Earth
1. Universality and sovereignty. Though it is not always clear whether אֶרֶץ means “earth” or “land,” the expression כָּל־הָאָרֶץ frequently means the whole earth, rather than just “the whole land” (cf. Gen 1:26; 11:4, 8, 9; Ps 8:1 [2], 9 [10]). Combined with “heaven(s),” שָׁמַיִם, the phrase “heaven and earth” expresses the totality of the created order, as the opening verse of the Bible summarily expresses it (Gen 1:1; cf. 2:4). As creator, Yahweh is thus the universal God of heaven and earth (Gen 14:19, 22; 24:3; Ps 102:19 [20], 25 [26]; 115:15; 146:6; Isa 48:13) and can indeed “summon” them as witnesses to his historical dealings with Israel (Deut 32:1; Ps 50:21; Isa 1:2; Mic 6:2). The fact that Yahweh is universal Creator gives stability and durability to the world (תֵּבֵל, #9315; 1 Sam 2:8; Ps 78:69; 89:11 [12]; 93:1; 96:10). It also means that Yahweh’s sovereignty extends throughout the whole earth, by right of ownership—it is “his whole world” (Prov 8:31), “the whole earth is mine” (Exod 19:5; cf. Ps 24:1; 95:4–5). This concept can also be expressed by calling Yahweh the Lord of the whole earth (Josh 3:11, 13; Ps 97:5; Mic 4:13), the judge of the whole earth (Gen 18:25; Ps 94:2; cf. Isa 24), and king over all the earth (Ps 47:2, 7 [3, 8]), or by stating that Yahweh’s glory fills, or is over, the whole earth (Ps 57:5, 11 [6, 12], 72:19), or simply that Yahweh “fills heaven and earth” (Jer 23:24). The great “power encounter” between Yahweh and Pharaoh is intended to demonstrate that “the earth is the Lord’s” (Exod 9:29), and indeed that there is no God like Yahweh “in all the earth” (Exod 9:14–16). From their unique historical experience, Israel was meant to learn the uniqueness of Yahweh: incomparable throughout the universe (Deut 4:32, 39). (בָּרָא, create, #1343).
2. Human dwelling. While God’s universal ownership is the basic truth, the more direct fact is that the earth is where human beings live. “The highest heavens belong to the Lord, but the earth he has given to man (בְּנֵי־אָדָם)” (Ps 115:16). The earth is there to be “filled” by God’s human creation (Gen 1:28), and God’s rich provision of the resources of the earth and its climate are for human benefit (Gen 1:29; 9:1–3; Job 28:5; Ps 65:9–13; 67:6). The link between humanity and the earth is even clearer in the creation tradition that God fashioned man (אָדָם) from the dust of the earth (אֲדָמָה) (Gen 2:7). The earth, then, while belonging ultimately to God who made it, is entrusted to humanity, to serve (אָבַד) and keep (שָׁמַר) (Gen 2:15). Though the reference is to the garden of Eden, the principle applies to human stewardship of the earth. Furthermore, just as God “walked” in the garden with his human companions (Gen 3:8), so the promise of God to an obedient people was that he would “walk” among them in their land as in his own dwelling place (Lev 26:11–12, using the same unusual hitp. form of הָלַךְ, stroll, #2143; as in Gen 3:8), and the ultimate vision of the Scripture is of God finally dwelling with humanity in the new earth (Rev 21:3).
3. Curse and covenant. Before the realization of that vision, however, humankind lives in the earth, which is under God’s curse as a result of sin. God’s sentence upon Adam included the declaration, “Cursed is the ground because of you” (Gen 3:17–19). Significantly, אֲדָמָה is used, indicating that the curse primarily affects human relationship to the surface of the earth—i.e., the soil on which we live and from which we eat. This is reinforced in the punishment on Cain, who is “cursed from the ground” (Gen 4:11–12, אֲדָמָה; Cain sees himself as driven from the land, אֲדָמָה, and thus a wanderer on the earth, אֶרֶץ, v. 14). אֲדָמָה is also used in the longing for respite from the curse on the “ground” (NIV), expressed in the naming of Noah (Gen 5:29). In the specific case of Israel, the effect of the curse under the covenant would be felt most clearly on the land (cf. Deut 28:18, 21, 33, 42, 51—all using אֲדָמָה).
If the curse is related particularly to the earth as the place of human cultivation, the effects of human sin and pride are manifest in the earth (אֶרֶץ) as a whole. This is seen in two contexts particularly in the primal history; namely, the narratives of the Flood and the Tower of Babel. The whole earth had become “corrupt and violent” in God’s sight; this is the verdict of Gen 6, in which אֶרֶץ is used repeatedly (e.g., vv. 5, 6, 11–13, etc.). The picture is of universal sinfulness corrupting the earth and leading God to a virtual reversal of creation (v. 17). The same universal perspective frames the Babel story (Gen 11:1–9; NIV varies “world” and “earth,” but the Heb. is consistently כָּל־הָאָרֶץ). The primal history thus reaches its climax with “the face of the whole earth” serving as the arena for human scatteredness and confusion.
In both cases, God responds not merely with judgment, but also with covenant promise, and in both cases the respective covenant affects the whole earth. After the Flood, God announces virtually a new creation, for animal and human life on the earth (Gen 8:17; 9:7, both אֶרֶץ). This is then confirmed in the Noahic covenant, which is repeatedly affirmed to be with “all life on earth”; indeed it is, says God, “between me and the earth” (Gen 9:13, and the whole context, 8:21–9:17, in which אֶרֶץ is repeatedly used). In this covenant God promises to preserve the conditions for life on earth “as long as the earth endures” (Gen 8:22). Humanity, therefore, lives in the ambiguity of an earth that is both under curse and under covenant, a tension that Paul resolves eschatologically in Rom 8:19–22. And after the debacle of Babel, God’s response is the covenant with Abraham, which not only includes the promise of specific land to his people (Gen 12:7), but through him promises blessing to “all peoples on earth” (כֹּל מִשְׁפְּחֹת הָאֲדָמָה, Gen 12:3), or “all nations on earth” (כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, Gen 18:18). The Abrahamic covenant thus becomes the foundation of the biblical theme of God’s redemptive mission.
4. Personification or metynomy. Because the earth is so closely intertwined with the relationship between the personal God and his human personal creation, it is often portrayed in personified terms. It is important to recognize this as literary or rhetorical personification, which expresses God’s action in or through the world, or creation’s role in relation to God, or the effects in nature of human action in relation to God and each other. It is not a personalizing of the earth as such or a divinizing of the created order.
When personified, אֶרֶץ can refer to the whole earth, to the land of Israel, or to their inhabitants depending on the context, which is usually clear. Thus, the earth trembles under God’s anger (Ps 18:7; Isa 13:13), but also rejoices at the coming of his rectifying judgment (Ps 96:11–13; 98:7–9). It bears witness to his acts and words (Deut 32:1). Human evil and injustice make the earth (land) mourn (Hos 4:3) and cry out and weep (Job 31:38), and, most vividly of all, even vomit (Lev 18:25–28).
5. The ends of the earth. In his covenant with Abraham, God promised that all nations of the earth would be blessed through him. This divine purpose for the earth through the agency of Israel developed an eschatological motif regarding “the ends of the earth.” The phrase is used to translate both sing. and pl. forms of the Heb. קָצֶה, end (#7895); קָצָה, end (#7896). Since the sovereignty of Yahweh as universal Creator extends over the whole earth, he can be called “creator of the ends of the earth” (Isa 40:28) and is therefore totally capable of carrying out his will anywhere in between. Likewise, he can be expected to “judge the ends of the earth” (1 Sam 2:10); his name and praise reach to the ends of the earth (Ps 48:10 [11]); and Israel’s experience of Yahweh’s salvation makes him “the hope of all the ends of the earth” (Ps 65:5 [6]).
Among those things that will reach the ends of the earth are Yahweh’s name and praise (Ps 48:10 [11]; Isa 42:10), the fear of God (Ps 67:7 [8]), knowledge of God’s rule (Ps 59:13 [14]), the salvation of God (Ps 98:3; Isa 49:6; 52:10), and the proclamation of his redemption of his people (Isa 48:20; 62:11). Messianic texts include the Davidic king being granted the ends of the earth (Ps 2:7 [8]) and the greatness of the ruler of Israel from Bethlehem reaching to the ends of the earth (Mic 5:4 [3]). Ps 72, which clearly was written for the Davidic king, celebrates his reign in language that is extravagant unless heard in an eschatological key, not only including the ends of the earth in the extent of his rule (v. 8), but explicitly echoing the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all nations (v. 17) and envisaging the “whole earth” being filled with Yahweh’s glory (v. 19). Alongside this “centrifugal” perspective, the phrase is also used “centripetally” to portray people from the ends of the world coming to Yahweh (Jer 16:19), turning to him for salvation (Ps 22:7; Isa 45:22; cf. also Isa 2:2–5; 60:3; 66:18, 23), or singing his praise (Isa 24:14–16; 42:10), an ingathering that parallels (and in the NT is linked to) God’s gathering of his own people from the ends of the earth (Jer 31:8; cf. Deut 30:4).
Eschatologically, the expectation that Yahweh’s light, salvation, knowledge, and glory would go to the ends of the earth is particularly strong in Isaiah (Isa 48:20; 49:6; 62:11), though not confined to this book. Alternative expressions also include אֶפֶס (end, #700; e.g., 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 22:27; Isa 45:22; 52:10; Jer 16:19; Mic 5:4) and אָצִיל (farthest corner, #721; only in Isa 41:9).
Though not using the term “ends of the earth,” another series of texts in the Deuteronomic history expresses similar universal hope in the desire that all peoples, or the whole earth, will come to know the name of Yahweh as the only God (Josh 4:24; 1 Sam 17:46; 1 Kgs 8:41–43, 60; 2 Kgs 19:15, 19).
6. New creation. The natural climax of such an eschatological, missiological vision is that, when the nations of humanity are transformed into redeemed worshipers of Yahweh, then the earth itself will be transformed, mainly by the lifting of the deleterious effects of the curse. Accordingly, pictures of the new age of Yahweh’s unhindered reign and the people’s perfect obedience include the transformation of the earth and nature by the removal of all that harms or frustrates (Isa 11:1–9; 65:20–25). Ultimately this leads to the vision of a transformation of the whole created order. In Isa 65:17 Yahweh declares, “Behold, I will create (בּוֹרֵא, lit., am creating) new heavens and a new earth,” which is not only a significant echo of the opening verse of Genesis, but interesting in its use of the participle rather than the imperfect. The new creation is not merely a future event, but something God is engaged in bringing about now (cf. Isa 66:22, making). The NT reflects the same hope (Rom 8:19–22; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev 21:1, 5).
B. The Land
1. Divine ownership. The land on which Israel lived forms one of the primary theological and ethical foci of the faith of Israel and of the OT scriptures. And so the first surprising thing is that it is hardly ever referred to in the OT itself as “the land of Israel,” אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל (meaning the whole land, as distinct from the territory of the northern kingdom of Israel). The expression occurs in 1 Sam 13:9 in the context of the Philistine oppression, Ezek 40:2; 47:18 (geographical), and 1 Chron 22:2; 2 Chron 2:17 (referring to aliens in the country). Ezekiel uses אַדְמַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, perhaps deliberately avoiding the more politically territorial אֶרֶץ (Ezek 11:17; 12:19; 13:9). Much more often it is referred to as the land “of Canaan,” “of the Canaanites,” or “of the Amorites” long after the settlement, as though intentionally to keep Israel aware that it had not always been their land. They owed it to Yahweh’s promise and gift. It is also possible that the strange reticence to use the phrase אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל may be due to the greater awareness that it was, and remained, Yahweh’s land.
Lev 25:23 is the clearest expression of Yahweh’s ownership of the land, basing the regulations for inalienability and redemption of family land on the affirmation “for the land is mine” (כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ) (Wright, 1990, 58–64). Elsewhere, however, it is called “the Lord’s land” (Isa 14:2, using אֲדָמָה; Josh 22:19, using אֶרֶץ and אֲחֻזָּה); “my land” (2 Chron 7:20; Isa 14:25; Jer 2:7; Ezek 36:5; 38:16; Joel 1:6; 3:2); “his land” (Deut 32:43; Isa 36:18 [in the mouth of the Assyrian commander]; Ezek 36:20 [in the mouth of the nations]). The concept of divine ownership rests, however, not only on possessive word forms, but also on the prominent description of the land as Yahweh’s “inheritance” (נַחֲלָה, #5709) (1 Sam 26:19; 2 Sam 14:16; Ps 68:9 [10]; 79:1; Jer 2:7), a term used to describe family property. Possibly the earliest reference to the land as belonging to Yahweh actually predates the invasion of the Israelites. In the Song of Moses there is advance celebration of the arrival of the Israelites on “the mountain of your inheritance” (נַחֲלָתְךָ) and “the place … for your dwelling” (Exod 15:17). The mountain probably stands for the whole land and affirms Yahweh’s ownership of it even before the Canaanites have been dispossessed.
2. Divine gift. The other side of the coin of Yahweh’s ownership of the land is that he gifted it to Israel in the great historical-redemptive tradition. From the original promise of the land to Israel’s ancestors (Gen 12:7; 15:18–21, etc) to its possession under Joshua, and at many points in the story in between (e.g., Exod 6:8; 34:10–11; Deut 1:8 and passim), the theme of land promise and gift undergirds the narrative. The gift of the land was the tangible proof of Yahweh’s faithfulness and dependability and therefore called forth the response of gratitude and worship (Deut 26:1–11).
Von Rad rightly distinguished these two dimensions of Israel’s land theology (i.e., divine ownership and divine gift), regarding them as cultic and historical conceptions respectively. But his view that they came originally from independent traditions has not been generally accepted (Wright, 1990, 5–13).
This double-sided land theology generated in Israel a strong basis for ethics in general, and economic ethics in particular. In the law, for example, the fact that Israel had experienced alien status in Egypt, but now had a land of their own by God’s redemptive grace, is the motivation for just and compassionate treatment of aliens in their own land (Exod 22:21 [20]; 23:9; Deut 10:18–19). In the prophets the great historical land-gift tradition puts Israel’s oppressive and exploitative behavior in a bad light (Amos 2:9–10; Mic 6:1–5). So much of the moral, didactic rhetoric of Deuteronomy is predicated on the gift of the land and on the need to follow an ethical lifestyle both in response to the gift and in order to prolong the enjoyment of it. In particular, Israel’s whole economic system, including the equitable division of land to the tribes, clans, and families, the principle of inalienable family inheritance, the institutions of redemption of land and of sabbatical and jubilee years, and all the many mechanisms for the relief of poverty and restoration of the poor to participation in the blessings of the land, was based on Yahweh’s moral sovereignty in the economic sphere as the ultimate landlord (Wright, 1990, 119–73).
3. Land as “fulcrum” in the covenant relationship. Given its intimate relationship to both Yahweh and Israel (described, e.g., as the “inheritance” of both), the land functions as a midterm in the relationship between them. The description of the land as Israel’s inheritance underlines the status of Israel as Yahweh’s “firstborn son” (Exod 4:22), a relationship that partly parallels but also surpasses the covenant metaphor (cf. Jer 3:19; Wright, 1990, 15–22). Israel’s behavior on the land determines Yahweh’s response to Israel in the land, and the land will “respond” to both. The king’s just and benevolent government, for example, would bring environmental and agricultural benefits to the land (Ps 72:2–4, 12–16). But the people’s social evil made the land mourn (Hos 4:3). In the end, as threatened, the land that had vomited out the Canaanites for their wickedness repeated the performance on the Israelites (Lev 18:25–28), and the loss of land symbolized the broken covenant relationship between Yahweh and the people to whom he had given it. Part of the threat of the covenant curses included exile from the land and scattering among the nations (Lev 26:32–39; Deut 28:63–64). Depending, of course, on one’s view of the dating of those documents, Amos either reflected that tradition or was the earliest to predict such disaster for the land, whose funeral song he sang with great pathos (Amos 5:1–2; cf. 7:11). Jeremiah likewise rejected any automatic security in the land tradition and threatened Jerusalem, the temple, and the land with destruction matching Shiloh because of the rampant violation of the Sinai covenant demands (Jer 7:1–15). And so it happened.
But alongside the threat of the covenant curses lay the promise that beyond the judgment of land-loss could lie the future of a return to the land, a symbol again of a restored covenant relationship between a repentant people and God. Lev 26:40–45 significantly makes the land the fulcrum, or midterm, in God’s “remembering”: He will remember the Abrahamic covenant (v. 42a), the land (v. 42b), and the Sinai covenant (v. 45). Deut 30:4–10 makes the same point with added rhetoric. And again, the prophets add their poetry to the vision of restoration to the land in the context of repentance, obedience, and renewed covenant (e.g., Jer 24:5–7; 30–31; 32:36–44; Ezek 36–37; Hos 2:14–23 [16–25]; Amos 9:14–15).
4. Theological and ethical relevance. The theme of earth and land can be seen to flow in two directions in Christian development. On the one hand, the NT provides a Christological fulfillment perspective on the land, as it does on the other great realia of OT Israel. The land, considered as a political territory, receives no theological attention in the NT, though Jerusalem (which in some cases may symbolically include the land) is treated in various ways (Walker). But what the land stood for in Israel’s faith is certainly affirmed as a continuing reality in the Messiah. The language of “inheritance” is prominent in describing the present and future experience of those in Christ (e.g., 1 Peter 1:4; cf. Matt 5:5). In fact, Paul uses land inheritance language to speak of the inclusion through Christ of those who formerly, by not having a share in the ownership of the land, were excluded from the covenant people, i.e., aliens or “Gentiles” (Eph 2:11–22; 3:6). Hebrews tells Jewish Christians that Christ has granted them the “rest” that even Joshua’s conquest of the land had not fully achieved—another use of terminology with strong associations with the land (Heb 4:1–11). John redirects interest in the physical mountain of worship to the person of the Messiah (John 4:20–26). Christ himself, therefore, incorporates and fulfills the significance of the land, as he did also for the law, the covenant, the temple, the king, the priesthood, the prophetic word, Wisdom, etc. (Davies). The effect of this, however, was far from being merely a spiritualizing evaporation of all the great social and economic themes associated with the land in the OT. The reality of Christian κοινώνια in Christ included such practical aspects of inclusion, authority, lifestyle, and socioeconomic responsibility in ways that clearly reflect these same dimensions of Israel’s life in the land (Wright, 1983, 92–102; 1990, 110–114; Martens).
On the other hand, the OT itself prepares the way for an ethical paradigm understanding of the relevance of the land. This can be seen in the way the twin perspectives on the land (divine ownership and divine gift) reflect exactly the same perspectives as regards the whole earth (see A. 1–2). Just as the land was gifted to Israel but remained under Yahweh’s ownership, and therefore his moral inspection, so also the earth as a whole has been entrusted to all humanity, but remains under God’s ultimate ownership. “The earth is the Lord’s.” Accordingly, given the moral consistency of God, it is legitimate to extrapolate from the principles of Israel’s economic values and systems to analogous objectives for social and economic justice elsewhere in the world. This will not be a matter of slavish imitation, but rather of applying a paradigm from Israel’s land, with all necessary adjustments of history and culture, to other lands in which, as human beings, we are entrusted with stewardship of God’s earth (Wright, 1983, ch. 4).
See Land, earth
Bibliography ABD 2:245–48; 4:143–54; TDNT 1:677–81; TDOT 1:88–98, 388–405; B. W. Anderson, “The Earth Is the Lord’s: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation,” Interp 9, 1955, 3–20; W. Brueggemann, The Land, 1977; W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land, 1961; P. Diepold, Israel’s Land, 1972; N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, 1979; E. A. Martens, God’s Design: Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament, 1981; P. D. Miller, “The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land,” Int 23, 1969, 451–65; G. von Rad, “Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch’ ” in idem, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966; P. Walker, Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God, 1992; C. J. H. Wright, An Eye for an Eye: Living as the People of God, 1983; idem, God’s People in God’s Land, 1990; W. Zimmerli, The Old Testament and the World, 1976.
Christopher J. H. Wright

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921965#Comment_921965

Wow, thanks that does help. So the HALOT is almost pure data, whereas the Theological dictionary provides specific uses- thus giving context for the uses. Almost like an encyclopedia.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/921961#Comment_921961

So then, which product would be preferred- the New International Dictionary or the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary?

Joseph Turner

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/922001#Comment_922001

So then, which product would be preferred- the New International Dictionary or the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary?

Those are going to be totally different resources. What are your going to be doing? Research? School? Pastoring? If you work in original languages or do a lot of word studies, then you might need the theological dictionaries. Otherwise, out of those two choices, I would get the AYBD.