1
Ioas s-a făcut împărat în al şaptelea an al lui Iehu, şi a domnit patruzeci de ani la Ierusalim. Mamă-sa se chema Ţibia, din Beer-Şeba.
2
Ioas a făcut ce este plăcut înaintea Domnului, în tot timpul cât a urmat îndrumările preotului Iehoiada.
3
Numai, că înălţimile n-au încetat; poporul tot mai aducea jertfe şi tămâie pe înălţimi.
4
Ioas a zis preoţilor: ,,Tot argintul închinat şi adus în Casa Domnului, argintul ieşit la numărătoare, şi anume argintul pentru răscumpărarea oamenilor, după preţuirea făcută, şi tot argintul pe care-i spune cuiva inima să-l aducă la Casa Domnului,
5
preoţii să-l ia fiecare dela cei pe cari-i cunoaşte, şi să-l întrebuinţeze la dregerea casei, ori unde se va găsi ceva de dres.``
6
Dar s-a întâmplat că, în al douăzeci şi treilea an al împăratului Ioas, preoţii încă nu dreseseră stricăciunile casei.
7
Împăratul Ioas a chemat pe preotul Iehoiada şi pe ceilalţi preoţi, şi le-a zis: ,,Pentruce n-aţi dres stricăciunile casei?`` Acum, să nu mai luaţi argint de la cunoscuţii noştri, ci să-l daţi pentru dregerea stricăciunilor casei.``
8
Preoţii s-au învoit să nu mai ia argint dela popor, şi să nu mai fie însărcinaţi cu dregerea stricăciunilor casei.
9
Atunci preotul Iehoiada a luat o ladă, i-a făcut o gaură în capac, şi a pus-o lângă altar, la dreapta, în drumul pe unde se intra în Casa Domnului. Preoţii cari păzeau pragul puneau în ea tot argintul care se aducea în Casa Domnului.
10
Când vedeau că este mult argint în ladă, se suia logofătul împăratului cu marele preot, şi strângeau şi numărau argintul care se afla în Casa Domnului.
11
Încredinţau argintul cântărit în mânile celor însărcinaţi cu facerea lucrărilor la Casa Domnului. Şi dădeau argintul acesta teslarilor şi lucrătorilor cari lucrau în Casa Domnului,
12
zidarilor şi cioplitorilor de pietre, pentru cumpărarea lemnelor şi pietrelor cioplite, trebuitoare la dregerea stricăciunilor Casei Domnului, şi pentru toate cheltuielile privitoare la stricăciunile casei.
13
Dar, cu argintul care se aducea în Casa Domnului, n-au făcut pentru Casa Domnului nici lighene de argint, nici mucări, nici potire, nici trâmbiţe, nici un vas de aur sau de argint:
14
ci îl dădeau celor ce făceau lucrarea, ca să-l întrebuinţeze pentru dregerea Casei Domnului.
15
Nu se cerea socoteală oamenilor în mânile cărora dădeau argintul ca să-l împartă lucrătorilor, căci lucrau cinstit.
16
Argintul jertfelor pentru vină şi al jertfelor de ispăşire nu era adus în Casa Domnului: ci era pentru preoţi.
17
Atunci Hazael, împăratul Siriei, s-a suit şi s-a bătut împotriva Gatului, şi l-a cucerit. Hazael avea de gând să se suie împotriva Ierusalimului.
18
Ioas, împăratul lui Iuda, a luat toate lucrurile închinate Domnului, şi anume ce fusese închinat Domnului de Iosafat, de Ioram şi de Ahazia, părinţii săi, împăraţii lui Iuda, ce închinase el însuş, şi tot aurul care se găsea în visteriile Casei Domnului şi casei împăratului. Şi a trimes totul lui Hazael, împăratul Siriei, care nu s-a suit împotriva Ierusalimului.
19
Celelalte fapte ale lui Ioas, şi tot ce a făcut el, nu sânt scrise oare în cartea Cronicilor împăraţilor lui Iuda?
20
Slujitorii lui s-au răsculat, au făcut o uneltire şi au lovit pe Ioas în casa Milo, care este la pogorîşul dela Sila.
21
Iozacar, fiul lui Şimeat, şi Iozabad, fiul lui Şomer, slujitorii lui, l-au lovit şi a murit. Apoi l-au îngropat cu părinţii săi, în cetatea lui David. Şi, în locul lui a domnit fiul său Amaţia
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":18746,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehoiada","title_en":"Jehoiada","content_ro":"<h3>JEHOIADA<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Benaiah, a high military officer during the reigns of David and Solomon. Jehoiada was a priest (1 Chr 27:5) who joined forces with David at Hebron and was identified with the house of Aaron (12:27). <em>See<\/em> Benaiah #1.<\/li>\n<li>2. High priest in Jerusalem who organized and led the coup that overthrew Queen Athaliah of Judah, together with the Baal cult she supported, and established his nephew Joash (Jehoash) on the throne (2 Kgs 11:4-21; 2 Chr 23:1-15). As long as he lived, Jehoiada kept the king true to the Lord (2 Kgs 12:1-16; 2 Chr 23:16–24:14). He died at the age of 130 and was buried in the city of David among the kings.<\/li>\n<li>3. Benaiah’s son, who succeeded Ahithophel as King David’s counselor (1 Chr 27:33-34); he was probably a grandson of #1 above, although some believe these to be the same.<\/li>\n<li>4. KJV spelling of Joiada, Paseah’s son, in Nehemiah 3:6. <em>See<\/em> Joiada #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate name for Joiada, son of Eliashib the high priest, in Nehemiah 13:28. <em>See<\/em> Joiada #2.<\/li>\n<li>6. Priest during the time of Jeremiah who was succeeded by Zephaniah as overseer of the temple (Jer 29:26).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JEHOIADA<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father of Benaiah, a high military officer during the reigns of David and Solomon. Jehoiada was a priest (1 Chr 27:5) who joined forces with David at Hebron and was identified with the house of Aaron (12:27). <em>See<\/em> Benaiah #1.<\/li>\n<li>2. High priest in Jerusalem who organized and led the coup that overthrew Queen Athaliah of Judah, together with the Baal cult she supported, and established his nephew Joash (Jehoash) on the throne (2 Kgs 11:4-21; 2 Chr 23:1-15). As long as he lived, Jehoiada kept the king true to the Lord (2 Kgs 12:1-16; 2 Chr 23:16–24:14). He died at the age of 130 and was buried in the city of David among the kings.<\/li>\n<li>3. Benaiah’s son, who succeeded Ahithophel as King David’s counselor (1 Chr 27:33-34); he was probably a grandson of #1 above, although some believe these to be the same.<\/li>\n<li>4. KJV spelling of Joiada, Paseah’s son, in Nehemiah 3:6. <em>See<\/em> Joiada #1.<\/li>\n<li>5. Alternate name for Joiada, son of Eliashib the high priest, in Nehemiah 13:28. <em>See<\/em> Joiada #2.<\/li>\n<li>6. Priest during the time of Jeremiah who was succeeded by Zephaniah as overseer of the temple (Jer 29:26).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JEHOIADA 1. Father of Benaiah, a high military officer during the reigns of David and Solomon. Jehoiada was a priest (1 Chr 27:5) who joined forces with David at Hebron and was identified with the house of Aaron (12:27). See Benaiah #1. 2. High priest in Jerusalem who organized and led the coup that overthrew Queen Athaliah of Judah, together with the Baal cult she supported, and established his nephew Joash (Jehoash) on the throne (2 Kgs 11:4-21; 2 Chr 23:1-15). As long as he lived, Jehoiada...","summary_en":"JEHOIADA 1. Father of Benaiah, a high military officer during the reigns of David and Solomon. Jehoiada was a priest (1 Chr 27:5) who joined forces with David at Hebron and was identified with the house of Aaron (12:27). See Benaiah #1. 2. High priest in Jerusalem who organized and led the coup that overthrew Queen Athaliah of Judah, together with the Baal cult she supported, and established his nephew Joash (Jehoash) on the throne (2 Kgs 11:4-21; 2 Chr 23:1-15). As long as he lived, Jehoiada...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39302,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zibiah","title_en":"Zibiah","content_ro":"<h3>ZIBIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Mother of King Jehoash of Judah, from the town of Beersheba (2 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chr 24:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZIBIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Mother of King Jehoash of Judah, from the town of Beersheba (2 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chr 24:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZIBIAH Mother of King Jehoash of Judah, from the town of Beersheba (2 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chr 24:1).","summary_en":"ZIBIAH Mother of King Jehoash of Judah, from the town of Beersheba (2 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chr 24:1).","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47335,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","summary_en":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74961,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","summary_en":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102587,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","summary_en":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130213,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:1","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:1<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em> reigned from 835 to 796 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","summary_en":"12:1 Joash reigned from 835 to 796 BC.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":22007,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Kings","title_en":"Books of First and Second Kings","content_ro":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KINGS, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 <span>BC<\/span> and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, around 561 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Sources<\/p>\n<p>• Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorshipandDate\">Authorship and Date<\/p>\n<p>Kings was originally regarded as one book in the Hebrew canon; the division into two books of approximately equal length appeared first in the Septuagint and finally entered the Hebrew Bible in the 15th century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book itself is anonymous, and information about its author can only be deduced by examining the concerns and perspectives of the work. The Babylonian Talmud (<em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 15a) attributes Kings to Jeremiah. Although this identification could have arisen from the tendency of later Jewish tradition to assign biblical books to prophetic authors, the theory of origin in prophetic circles fits the evidence quite well. Substantial portions are given to the lives of the prophets; 16 of 47 chapters are devoted to the lives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10), and there is considerable interest in other prophetic figures such as Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), an unnamed man of God (13:1-10), and Micaiah (22:13-28). Possible dependence on Isaiah (2 Kgs 18–20; cf. Is 36–39) and Jeremiah (2 Kgs 24–25; cf. Jer 52) also suggest prophetic origin. The author-compiler also shows intense concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word, frequently calling attention to the fulfillment of words spoken earlier by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>One might initially think that such a history would be unlikely for a prophet, but the evidence is to the contrary. The prophets were the guardians of the covenant relationship and are known to have produced accounts used as sources by other biblical historians. The following are among such sources: the acts of Samuel the seer, the acts of Nathan the prophet, the acts of Gad the seer (1 Chr 29:29); the acts of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr 9:29); the chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (12:15); the annotations of the prophet Iddo (13:22); and the acts of Uzziah by Isaiah the prophet (26:22). Add to this the fact that Kings is positioned in the Hebrew canon in the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2 Kings), and a consistent picture of prophetic origin emerges.<\/p>\n<p>The date of the final part of the book must be after the last events recorded. Evil-merodach’s kindness toward Jehoiachin (c. 561 <span>BC<\/span>) is the terminus of the book and therefore fixes the earliest date. Since the work shows no knowledge of the restoration period, a date before 539 <span>BC<\/span> is probable. The author’s selection of his data to answer the burning theological questions of the exilic community also suggests a date between 561 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sources\">Sources<\/p>\n<p>The compiler of Kings specifically names three of the sources that he used in his work, and biblical scholars have suggested the presence of a number of other sources that may have been cited. Of course, the sources not mentioned specifically by the compiler are only the speculations of those who have studied his work and can have only varying degrees of probability. The sources both specified and alleged are as follows.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Acts of Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>As 1 Kings 11:41 says, “The rest of the events in Solomon’s reign, including his wisdom, are recorded in <em>The Book of the Acts of Solomon”<\/em> (<span>nlt<\/span>). Presumably additional materials of a biographical nature were included, specifically accounts similar to the judgment between the two mothers (3:16-28) or the visit of the queen of Sheba (10:1-10). There has been debate as to whether these materials were official court records or nonofficial documents. Some scholars have attempted to isolate further materials within this section by identifying descriptions of the buildings as from temple archives (chs 6–7) and lists of administrators as from administrative documents (chs 4–5), but this must remain speculative.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned 17 times in Kings, usually in the closing formulas at the end of the account of the reign of a northern king. Some idea of the nature of these chronicles can be derived from looking at the type of information to which the compiler refers his readers (see 1 Kgs 14:19; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 13:12; 14:28). These passages suggest that this source was the official annals covering the reigns of the kings.<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>This source is mentioned in 15 passages, and as with the kings of Israel, is found in the concluding formulas to the accounts of the reigns. This source was to be consulted for additional details on individuals’ reigns (for example, see 1 Kgs 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kgs 20:20; 21:17). These sources for the histories of the two kingdoms were probably similar to the annals known from the surrounding cultures, particularly from the reigns of Assyrian kings. They were likely official court histories kept in Samaria and Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to these explicitly mentioned sources, scholars have suggested the compiler drew on other sources that he does not name.<\/p>\n<h5>Davidic Court History<\/h5>\n<p>Second Samuel 9–20 is often identified as a unit of material in the composition of the books of Samuel; it is variously called “the court history” or “the succession narrative.” Because of similar vocabulary and outlook, 1 Kings 1–2 are often associated with this material from Samuel. The statement of 1 Kings 2:46, “so the kingdom was now firmly in Solomon’s grip,” is taken to be the end of this record.<\/p>\n<h5>Sources for the House of Ahab<\/h5>\n<p>The reigns of individual kings are ordinarily given only brief notices; for example, the father of Ahab, Omri, is given eight verses, even though when judged by political and economic significance, he was among the greatest of the northern kings (1 Kgs 16:21-28). However, beginning with the reign of Ahab, the record becomes quite expansive, and extensive coverage is given the dynasty of Ahab through the coup by Jehu (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 12). The use of the stereotyped formulas for the reigns is suspended in this material, and the existence of other literature used by the compiler is probable. This material is commonly subdivided into further sources for the lives of Elijah and Elisha and the reign of Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The Elijah section covers material in the following chapters: 1 Kings 17–19, including the feeding by the ravens, the incidents with the widow of Zarephath, the drought, the fire on Carmel, and the revelation of God at Sinai; 1 Kings 21, the affair of Naboth’s vineyard; and 2 Kings 1, the death of Ahaziah’s messengers. The reign of Ahab, which gets so much attention in Kings, is primarily a backdrop for the accounts concerning Elijah.<\/p>\n<p>The Elisha material found in 2 Kings 2–13 may have had an independent literary development from that of the Elijah accounts. It includes the following: chapter 2 (Elisha’s succession to the prophetic office, the purification of a spring, the death of mocking children); chapter 3 (on the campaign against Moab); chapter 4 (the widow’s oil, the Shunammite woman); chapter 5 (Naaman’s leprosy); chapter 6 (the Aramean attempt to capture Elisha); chapter 7 (the famine in Samaria); chapter 8 (the Shunammite’s property, the coup of Hazael); chapter 9 (the anointing of Jehu); and chapter 13 (the death of Elisha). No other portion of the OT takes the sheer delight in the miraculous that is seen in the Elisha narratives.<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Kings 16 to 2 Kings 13 there are additional incidents not directly related to the biographies of Elijah and Elisha; accounts such as the military campaigns of 1 Kings 20:1-34 and further details of Jehu’s coup (2 Kgs 9:11–10:36) are often attributed to a third source containing accounts of the dynasty of Ahab and his successors. In all three of these possible sources the orientation is toward affairs in the northern kingdom.<\/p>\n<h5>Isaiah Source<\/h5>\n<p>The account of the reign of Hezekiah contains a section (2 Kgs 18:13–20:19) that is nearly a verbatim citation of material also found in Isaiah (Is 36:1–39:8). The section records the invasion of Sennacherib, the mission of the Rabshakeh, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, Hezekiah’s illness, the regression of the sun, and the envoys from Merodach-baladan. The material must be regarded as based on the book of Isaiah or some other source used in both Isaiah and Kings.<\/p>\n<h5>A Prophetic Source<\/h5>\n<p>Because Kings shows great interest in the prophets and their ministries, various scholars have suggested that yet another source was used by the compiler; this would be an independent literary unit containing accounts of the prophets. This source would have contained the records for the material on Ahijah (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 14:1-16), unnamed prophets (ch 12; 20:35-43), Micaiah (22:13-28), and other references.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from the sources explicitly mentioned and inferences about their character, the remainder of the sources suggested have only varying degrees of probability. Considerable scholarly effort has gone into identifying and characterizing such sources, but it remains speculative. When considering the sources the compiler may have used, one important caution must be kept in mind. Even if such sources did exist, one cannot have confidence in a reconstruction of the compositional history. Which sources had already been integrated into a larger composition before they were used by the compiler of Kings? We cannot be certain that the life situation out of which these other sources grew has been correctly identified, nor can we know that even the compiler himself was aware of the past history of his sources. Biblical scholarship has expended considerable energy in trying to delineate the past history of the book of Kings, but it has often been at the neglect of the unity of perspective that is the product of the final compiler(s) in whose hands the book received its canonical form.<\/p>\n<p>What is important to understanding the book is not the perspective of its various sources (of which the compiler himself may have been unaware), but the perspective of the book as a whole on the history of the kingdoms. It is the outline that the compiler has imposed on the sources that establishes the teaching of the book; his sources are used in accord with his own purposes, a fact that makes the purposes for which the sources had been prepared largely irrelevant to the teaching of the book in its present form. Exploring possible sources, worthwhile in itself, must not eclipse the message of the book as a whole. This is not to imply that the books of Kings are simply a compilation of unaltered sources. The writer(s) undoubtedly exercised a measure of selectivity and literary skill in composing the historical narrative.<\/p>\n<p>One compositional technique of the compiler is quite prominent in the histories of the divided kingdoms: this is the use of formulaic introductions and conclusions to the various reigns. The formulas for both kingdoms are quite similar, differing only in minor details. For the kings of Judah, the full introductory formula is as follows: (1) year of accession synchronized with the regnal year of the northern king; (2) age of the king at his accession; (3) length of his reign; (4) name of his mother; (5) judgment on the character of the reign. The account of a Judean king’s reign is concluded as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further information; (2) a statement regarding the death of the king, including the place of burial; (3) successor: “And his son reigned in his stead” (<span>rsv<\/span>). The full formula for a Judean king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21-22, 29-31).<\/p>\n<p>The formulas differ slightly for the kings of Israel; the introduction is as follows: (1) year of succession synchronized with the regnal year of the southern king; (2) length of his reign; (3) location of the royal residence; (4) condemnation for idolatry; (5) name of the king’s father. The account of an Israelite king’s reign ends as follows: (1) a reference to the chronicles of the kings of Israel for further information; (2) a statement regarding his death; (3) a statement of the succession of his son, unless a usurper follows. The full formula for an Israelite king can be seen, for example, in the reign of Baasha (1 Kgs 15:33-34; 16:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>There is some variation in the use of these patterns, but on the whole, they are consistently followed and provide the basic framework for the history of the divided kingdom. The synchronisms of the reigns provide data for constructing the chronology of the period. The variations in the formulas may reflect the characteristics of the sources the compiler was using or may reflect his own interests. The name of the mother of a Judean king is recorded, but not of an Israelite king, perhaps reflecting concern with a more exact and fuller record of the Davidic succession. The royal residence is presumed to be Jerusalem for the southern kings (though it may be mentioned) but is recorded for the northern kings since it moved several times, from Shechem to Penuel to Tirzah to Samaria. The mention of the king’s father for a northern ruler also reflects the frequent change in dynasties there, as opposed to the dynastic stability of Judah, which is reinforced by mentioning the burial of almost all its kings in the city of David.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologyandPurpose\">Theology and Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings record the history of the covenant people from the end of the reign of David (961 <span>BC<\/span>) through the fall of the southern kingdom (586 <span>BC<\/span>). Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns.<\/p>\n<p>Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief.<\/p>\n<p>The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 <span>BC<\/span>. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology—the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David (Jer 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kgs 8:16, 29)—had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t God keep his promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (fall of Jerusalem). Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of God to men.<\/p>\n<p>In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason Kings could be called Pentateuchal history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the covenant curses on disobedience.<\/p>\n<h5>Centralization of Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of the Lord. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of the Lord elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with Yahwism at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centered around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” (see 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22). The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented (1 Kgs 12:25–13:34). Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard (except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings)—even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace (16:9-20). For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David (2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2). Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places (Asa, 1 Kgs 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kgs 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35). The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” (17:20; see also 1 Kgs 15:11; 2 Kgs 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kgs 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse). The compiler wanted to show that God had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years (1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of God, that prompted the compiler to write.<\/p>\n<h5>Efficacy of the Prophetic Word<\/h5>\n<p>Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: 2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.<\/p>\n<h5>Fulfillment of the Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfillment of the covenant curses on disobedience. God’s covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” (Dt 28:49, <span>nasb<\/span>), and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem (28:52). The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 <span>BC<\/span>, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 6:24-30). Just as the Lord had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth (Dt 28:63-67).<\/p>\n<p>In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with God’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold: (1) the problem was not with God but with the people’s disobedience—God remains just; (2) the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David. Here the ending of the book is instructive: Evil-merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations (2 Kgs 25:27-30). Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favor and blessing of God. God has not abandoned his promises; the people should keep hope.<\/p>\n<p>Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centered in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 23:21-23). A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the law (Dt 24:16 in 2 Kgs 14:6).<\/p>\n<h5>Contrast with Chronicles<\/h5>\n<p>The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is God still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting, too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sm 11) or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne (1 Kgs 1–2). Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam (chs 13–14). Chronicles is interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted (1 Kgs 16—2 Kgs 10). Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 17:1–18:12). In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n\n<p>The books of Kings fall into three parts: (1) the reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11); (2) the history of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 12–2 Kgs 17); (3) the history of the surviving kingdom in Judah (2 Kgs 18–25).<\/p>\n<h5>The Reign of Solomon (1 Kgs 1–11)<\/h5>\n<p>The record begins with an account of the court intrigue surrounding Solomon’s accession to the throne, set against the backdrop of the abortive coup by Adonijah (ch 1). The dying David charges Solomon to obey the commandments of God (2:1-4) and also to take vengeance on his enemies (vv 5-9). After David’s death Solomon orders the deaths of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, and the banishment of Abiathar, the priest who had supported Adonijah in his bid for the throne (vv 13-46). Enemies eliminated, the kingdom was firmly established by Solomon (v 46).<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Solomon’s reign is divided into two parts: Solomon the good, who follows in the ways of his father, David (chs 3–10); and Solomon the bad, whose heart is led astray (ch 11). While sacrificing at Gibeon, Solomon asks God to give him the gift of wisdom to rule—wisdom promptly demonstrated in the quarrel of two prostitutes about a child (ch 3). An account is given of the administrative organization of the kingdom and the incomparable wisdom of Solomon (ch 4). The compiler of Kings gives extensive coverage to the preparations (ch 5), building (chs 6–7), and dedication (ch 8) of the temple. God appeared to Solomon a second time, reminding him to keep his commandments as David had done (9:1-9). Details are given of the king’s building and commercial activities (vv 10-27). The account of the visit by the queen of Sheba is followed with elaboration of Solomon’s splendor (ch 10). But Solomon did not keep God’s commands; seduced to pagan worship by his foreign wives, he was not fully devoted to the Lord as David had been (11:4), and God determined to take away the northern tribes from the rule of his son (vv 11-13). As punishment from the hand of God, Solomon faced rebellion among conquered peoples (vv 14-25) and within Israel in the person of Jeroboam (vv 26-40).<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Divided Kingdom (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17)<\/h5>\n\n<p>The united monarchy dissolved after the death of Solomon. The northern kingdom (Israel) would exist for about two centuries, would be ruled by 20 kings from nine different dynasties, and would show a history of internal weakness riddled with regicide and usurpation. In contrast, the southern kingdom would last for three and a half centuries and would be ruled by 19 kings of Davidic descent (apart from a short period under the dynastic interloper Athaliah).<\/p>\n<p>There had been a long history of independent action and even warfare between the northern and southern tribes prior to David and Solomon, so it is no surprise that the division would take place along the lines that it did. The immediate cause, however, was the unwise severity with which Rehoboam replied to the representatives of the northern tribes while negotiating for the kingship. Jeroboam, the popular hero of the earlier insurrection against Solomon, became king in the north. He immediately erected the rival sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12); these rival altars became the measure by which the kings of Israel were condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam.<\/p>\n<p>For two generations there would be warfare between Israel and Judah over the border areas in Benjamin claimed by both sides. Fifty years of sporadic fighting on their mutual frontier, interlaced with invasions from the Arameans in the north or the Egyptians in the south, would consume the reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, and Zimri in Israel and of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa in Judah (1 Kgs 13:1–16:20).<\/p>\n<p>The accession of Omri in Israel introduced a ruling house that would last for a total of four generations and end the dynastic instability of the northern kingdom. Though Kings gives Omri a scant eight verses (1 Kgs 16:21-28), he was among the greatest of the northern kings, forging alliances with the Phoenicians and Judah; for over a century, the Assyrians would call Israel “the house of Omri.”<\/p>\n<p>The reigns of Omri’s successors, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram, are treated at disproportionate length, taking almost a third of the total book, 16 of 47 chapters (1 Kgs 17—2 Kgs 10). This is due to the fact that the compiler of Kings incorporated extensive coverage of the lives of Elijah and Elisha, weaving a contrast between good and evil by paralleling the dynasty of Omri with these prophets. Ahab and Jezebel were used as foils for the account of Elijah, so that Ahab became a paradigm of the evil king (e.g., 2 Kgs 21:3).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this preoccupation with the dynasty of Omri and the lives of Elijah and Elisha, the equivalent period in Judah is not given as extensive coverage. During this period, the northern kingdom appears to have exercised some hegemony over Judah, as attested by the marriage of an Omride (Athaliah, 2 Kgs 8:18, 26) to Jehoram of Judah and the subservient role of Jehoshaphat to Ahab at the battle of Ramoth-gilead (1 Kgs 22). Judah’s fortunes declined in this period when Edom revolted against Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:20-22), costing Judah control over the port at Ezion-geber and consequent economic losses.<\/p>\n<p>In 842 <span>BC<\/span> Jehu, after being anointed king by a prophet (2 Kgs 9:1-13), led a coup ending the house of Omri and also killing Ahaziah of Judah (vv 14-29). Jehu’s purge also brought the death of Jezebel, Ahab’s family, members of the family of Ahaziah, and the ministers of Baal (9:30–10:36). The consequences were severe politically: the murder of the Phoenician princess Jezebel and the king of Judah cost Israel its allies to the north and south.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s dynasty had the longest succession of any in Israel, including Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Zechariah, a period spanning 90 years. Jehu’s murder of Ahaziah of Judah set the stage for the one threat to the continuity of the Davidic dynasty. Queen Athaliah, herself an Omride, seized the throne and attempted a purge of Davidic pretenders. She ruled for six years, until the faithful priest Jehoiada staged a countercoup to place the child Joash on the throne of David (ch 11).<\/p>\n<p>Israel endured a half century of weakness as a result of Jehu’s coup, during which the Arameans had a free hand, reducing the forces of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz to a small army and bodyguard (2 Kgs 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The reemergence of Assyria early in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> gave relief to Israel and Judah. Assyrian armies conquered the Arameans; with that threat removed, Israel and Judah enjoyed a dramatic resurgence. Jehoash of Israel, grandson of Jehu, reconquered cities lost to the Arameans (2 Kgs 13:25); Elisha died during his reign (v 20). In the south Amaziah reconquered the Edomites (14:7). Amaziah and Jehoash renewed the warfare between the kingdoms, with the north again victorious (vv 8-14).<\/p>\n<p>Under Jeroboam II, Israel enjoyed a period of prosperity when the borders of the kingdom reached the same extent as they had under Solomon (2 Kgs 14:23-28). Uzziah (Azariah), his contemporary in Judah, also fortified Jerusalem and undertook a program of offensive operations extending Judah’s sway to the south (14:21-22; 15:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Yet this resurgence was but a brilliant sunset in the history of the two kingdoms. After the death of Jeroboam II, the history is one of successive disasters, culminating in the fall of Israel and the subjugation of Judah to the might of Assyria. The next 30 years in Israel would see four dynasties, three represented by only one king, and repeated regicides as the northern kingdom hastened to its demise. A period of civil war and anarchy would see five kings in just over ten years (2 Kgs 15). Heavy tribute was paid to Tiglath-pileser III in both the north and south (15:19-20; 16:7-10). Israel and the Arameans forged a coalition to throw back the Assyrians and sought to press Ahaz of Judah into the fight; Ahaz appealed to Tiglath-pileser III for help. The coalition was destroyed, and Israel and Judah became vassals. Hoshea defected as soon as he felt safe, looking to Egypt for help, but it was suicide for the northern kingdom. Shalmaneser V retaliated, and the political history of the state of Israel came to an end (17:1-23). The area was resettled with other displaced populations (vv 24-41).<\/p>\n<p>Israel had faced the Arameans and survived, only to fall to Assyria. And now, similarly, Judah would outlast Assyria, only to fall to Babylon.<\/p>\n<h5>History of the Surviving Kingdom of Judah (2 Kgs 18–25)<\/h5>\n<p>Ahaz’s appeal for Assyrian aid cost him his liberty, and Judah became a vassal of the Assyrian Empire. Illegitimate worship flourished under his rule (2 Kgs 16:1-19). Ahaz was succeeded by the first of the outstanding reform kings of Judah: Hezekiah. Much of the account of his reign is given to his rebellion against Sennacherib of Assyria: the rebellion, the Assyrian envoys and threats, Isaiah’s assurances of deliverance, and the destruction of the Assyrian armies (18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s illness was averted after a sign and oracle from Isaiah (20:1-11). As part of what appears to be negotiations toward an anti-Assyrian alliance, Hezekiah also entertained envoys from Babylon, a decision that the prophet announced would be costly (vv 12-21).<\/p>\n<p>Hezekiah was followed by Manasseh, who ruled longer than any other king of Judah (a total of 55 years). His reign was marked by great apostasy—apostasy so severe that the compiler of Kings regarded his reign as sufficient reason for the exile that was unavoidable (2 Kgs 21:1-18; cf. 23:26; 24:3-4; Jer 15:1-4). Manasseh was followed by his son Amon, a carbon copy of his father, who ruled only two years before he was deposed by the people (2 Kings 21:19-26).<\/p>\n<p>The second great reform king of Judah, Josiah, followed. In his reign the Book of the Law was found while the temple was being refurbished; he led the people in a renewal of the covenant and suppressed illegitimate worship (2 Kgs 22:1–23:14). The Assyrian Empire was in rapid decline, so Josiah extended his borders to the north, destroying the altar at Bethel and the high places throughout Samaria (23:15-20). A great Passover celebration was convened in Jerusalem, and further measures were taken to rectify worship (vv 21-25). Josiah tried to block Pharaoh Neco’s foray to assist Assyria, and he lost his life at Megiddo (vv 26-30).<\/p>\n<p>Josiah was the only king of Judah to have three of his sons succeed him. At his death the people put Jehoahaz on the throne, but Neco removed him three months later and took him to Egypt in chains (2 Kgs 23:31-33), replacing him with another son of Josiah, Eliakim, whose name was changed to Jehoiakim (vv 34-37). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and Jehoiakim became his vassal. Late in his life Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. Jehoiakim died, leaving his son Jehoiachin to face retaliation from Babylon (24:1-10). Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem; when the city fell, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, the army, and the leaders of the land were carried away captive. Nebuchadnezzar put Mattaniah (uncle of Jehoiachin and third son of Josiah) on the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah (vv 11-17). Nine years later Zedekiah, too, would rebel against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city for two years and, when it fell, utterly destroyed it. Zedekiah’s sons were killed before his eyes, and then his own eyes were put out, and he was taken to Babylon (24:18–25:21). Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah to rule as governor from nearby Mizpah; he was assassinated, and the conspirators fled to Egypt (25:22-26).<\/p>\n<p>The book concludes by showing that God had not forgotten his promise to David, mentioning that in captivity Jehoiachin enjoyed favor from the hand of Evil-merodach, successor of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 25:27-30).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronicles, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","summary_en":"KINGS, Books of First and Second Books continuing the history of the covenant people as recorded in Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel. The record in Kings begins with the events at the end of David’s reign (1 Kgs 1–2). It continues through the reign of Solomon (chs 3–11); the histories of the divided kingdoms (1 Kgs 12—2 Kgs 17); and the history of the surviving kingdom in the south, through its fall in 586 BC and the subsequent kindness shown Jehoiachin by Evil-merodach, king of Babylo...","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47336,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","summary_en":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74962,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","summary_en":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102588,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","summary_en":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130214,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:2","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:2-3<\/strong> <em>Joash<\/em>’s indebtedness to <em>Jehoiada<\/em><em>,<\/em> the <em>priest<\/em> who <em>instructed him<\/em><em>,<\/em> kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to <em>destroy the pagan shrines<\/em> later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Chr 24:23-24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","summary_en":"12:2-3 Joash’s indebtedness to Jehoiada, the priest who instructed him, kept him faithful to the Lord while Jehoiada was alive. However, after Jehoiada’s death, godless leaders influenced Joash to forsake the Lord and follow Canaanite practices (see 2 Chr 24:17-22). • Joash’s failure to destroy the pagan shrines later became a source of spiritual compromise. Royal tolerance of such shrines in Judah had previously provoked God’s anger (1 Kgs 14:23-26) and would do so again in Joash’s day (2 Ch...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":16383,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"High Place","title_en":"High Place","content_ro":"<h3>HIGH PLACE<\/h3>\n<p>Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, located at the city gate as in Dan and Beersheba. It might even have been placed in a declivity (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\n<p>That a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> might simply be a burial place with commemorative stelae or memorial stones is clear from such a passage as Ezekiel 43:7. An illustration of such a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> is the so-called Gezer high place. This Bronze Age center with its 10 huge pillars is now interpreted as a mortuary shrine instead of a sanctuary in the strict sense of the term.<\/p>\n<p>A second word translated “high place” is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ramah<\/span> (elevation), from the Hebrew meaning “to be high.” Ezekiel used this term to refer to illicit worship centers (16:24-25, 31-39) that evidently had no necessary connection with height.<\/p>\n<p>One of the best-known and best-preserved of all high places in the vicinity of Palestine is the great high place at Petra, discovered by George L. Robinson in 1900. Located on a ridge west of the Khazneh, or treasury, it consists of a large rectangular court and adjacent altars. The court is about 47 feet (14.3 meters) long and 21 feet (6.4 meters) wide and is cut into the rock platform to a depth of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters). West of the court stand a square and a round altar, each hewn from the solid rock. South of the court is a pool measuring about eight and a half by nine and a half feet (2.6 by 2.9 meters) and cut four feet (1.2 meters) into the rock. South of the pool stand two sacred obelisks or pillars, also cut out of the solid rock. This whole complex is reached from a lower terrace by two flights of stairs. At this center the ancient Nabatean inhabitants of Petra evidently engaged in feasts and sacrifices to honor their gods. Though the worship center in its present form does not date before the first century <span>BC<\/span>, it preserves an ancient tradition of Transjordan and illustrates the pagan and Israelite high places of OT times.<\/p>\n<p>The pagan high place was usually located on a physical height, where one could feel closer to the god. Its first essential was an altar, which might be a heap of earth, unhewn stones, or a unit cut out of the solid rock. Second, there was a stone pillar (Dt 12:3) or obelisk <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">matsebah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the male deity and having phallic associations; third, a tree or pole <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">asherah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the female deity (a fertility goddess); and fourth, a laver for ceremonial washings. A sanctuary with an image of the deity also required a building of some sort to protect it (2 Kgs 17:29).<\/p>\n<p>At these pagan high places sacrifices of animals and sometimes of human beings took place, and religious prostitution or homosexual acts were common. It is natural that such practices should develop in a context of sympathetic magic, where promiscuity and breeding among human beings was supposed to influence animals and crops.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrews had legitimate high places between the time of the destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh and construction of the temple, though there was little similarity to pagan accoutrements or practices, apart from the presence of an altar and the offering of sacrifices. At one high place the people ate a sacrificial meal before Samuel anointed Saul king (1 Sm 9:12–10:1). The tabernacle was located at the high place of Gibeon during the reign of David (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). Solomon offered sacrifices at several high places (1 Kgs 3:2-3), and at the high place of Gibeon he met God and was granted the gift of wisdom for his administration (vv 4-15). Once Solomon’s temple was completed, high places were eliminated and were off-limits for the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>When the Hebrews entered Canaan, they encountered pagan peoples who had long worshiped at high places. God commanded the Israelites to destroy those sanctuaries (Nm 33:51-52) to avoid contamination by them, but the warning went largely unheeded. At the height of the Hebrew kingdom, after Solomon had completed the temple, he built high places for the god Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, and other gods of his pagan wives. For this sin God determined to split the Hebrew kingdom (1 Kgs 11:7-11).<\/p>\n<p>After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam established high places at Dan and Bethel, and Ahab and others proliferated their construction. Judgment was prophesied (1 Kgs 13:2-3; 2 Kgs 17:7-18), and ultimately the kingdom of Israel went into captivity to Assyria for her idolatry.<\/p>\n<p>Rehoboam, the first king of the southern kingdom, spread high places all over his domain (1 Kgs 14:23-24). Though King Asa launched a revival of true religion, he did not remove the high places (15:12-14). Jehoshaphat also initiated revival, but again the high places remained (22:43). On the other hand, his son Jehoram and his wife, Athaliah, encouraged their construction (2 Chr 21:11). Joash, during his revival, did not eliminate the high places (2 Kgs 12:3), nor did the good king Uzziah in similar efforts (15:3-4). Ahaz made no pretense of faithfulness to God, and actively encouraged the idolatry of the pagan sanctuaries (16:3-4). Finally, Hezekiah launched a campaign against the high places (2 Chr 31:1), but his policies were reversed during the reign of his wicked son Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:2-9). Josiah led the last Judean revival and again attacked the high places (23:5, 8).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets Isaiah (Is 15:2; 16:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:35), Ezekiel (Ez 6:3), Hosea (Hos 10:8), and Amos (Am 7:9) roundly condemned these centers of idolatry. <em>See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Gods and Goddesses; Grove; Idols, Idolatry.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIGH PLACE<\/h3>\n<p>Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, located at the city gate as in Dan and Beersheba. It might even have been placed in a declivity (Jer 7:31).<\/p>\n<p>That a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> might simply be a burial place with commemorative stelae or memorial stones is clear from such a passage as Ezekiel 43:7. An illustration of such a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">bamah<\/span> is the so-called Gezer high place. This Bronze Age center with its 10 huge pillars is now interpreted as a mortuary shrine instead of a sanctuary in the strict sense of the term.<\/p>\n<p>A second word translated “high place” is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ramah<\/span> (elevation), from the Hebrew meaning “to be high.” Ezekiel used this term to refer to illicit worship centers (16:24-25, 31-39) that evidently had no necessary connection with height.<\/p>\n<p>One of the best-known and best-preserved of all high places in the vicinity of Palestine is the great high place at Petra, discovered by George L. Robinson in 1900. Located on a ridge west of the Khazneh, or treasury, it consists of a large rectangular court and adjacent altars. The court is about 47 feet (14.3 meters) long and 21 feet (6.4 meters) wide and is cut into the rock platform to a depth of 18 inches (45.7 centimeters). West of the court stand a square and a round altar, each hewn from the solid rock. South of the court is a pool measuring about eight and a half by nine and a half feet (2.6 by 2.9 meters) and cut four feet (1.2 meters) into the rock. South of the pool stand two sacred obelisks or pillars, also cut out of the solid rock. This whole complex is reached from a lower terrace by two flights of stairs. At this center the ancient Nabatean inhabitants of Petra evidently engaged in feasts and sacrifices to honor their gods. Though the worship center in its present form does not date before the first century <span>BC<\/span>, it preserves an ancient tradition of Transjordan and illustrates the pagan and Israelite high places of OT times.<\/p>\n<p>The pagan high place was usually located on a physical height, where one could feel closer to the god. Its first essential was an altar, which might be a heap of earth, unhewn stones, or a unit cut out of the solid rock. Second, there was a stone pillar (Dt 12:3) or obelisk <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">matsebah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the male deity and having phallic associations; third, a tree or pole <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">asherah<\/span><em>)<\/em> representing the female deity (a fertility goddess); and fourth, a laver for ceremonial washings. A sanctuary with an image of the deity also required a building of some sort to protect it (2 Kgs 17:29).<\/p>\n<p>At these pagan high places sacrifices of animals and sometimes of human beings took place, and religious prostitution or homosexual acts were common. It is natural that such practices should develop in a context of sympathetic magic, where promiscuity and breeding among human beings was supposed to influence animals and crops.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrews had legitimate high places between the time of the destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh and construction of the temple, though there was little similarity to pagan accoutrements or practices, apart from the presence of an altar and the offering of sacrifices. At one high place the people ate a sacrificial meal before Samuel anointed Saul king (1 Sm 9:12–10:1). The tabernacle was located at the high place of Gibeon during the reign of David (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). Solomon offered sacrifices at several high places (1 Kgs 3:2-3), and at the high place of Gibeon he met God and was granted the gift of wisdom for his administration (vv 4-15). Once Solomon’s temple was completed, high places were eliminated and were off-limits for the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>When the Hebrews entered Canaan, they encountered pagan peoples who had long worshiped at high places. God commanded the Israelites to destroy those sanctuaries (Nm 33:51-52) to avoid contamination by them, but the warning went largely unheeded. At the height of the Hebrew kingdom, after Solomon had completed the temple, he built high places for the god Chemosh of Moab, Molech of Ammon, and other gods of his pagan wives. For this sin God determined to split the Hebrew kingdom (1 Kgs 11:7-11).<\/p>\n<p>After the division of the kingdom, Jeroboam established high places at Dan and Bethel, and Ahab and others proliferated their construction. Judgment was prophesied (1 Kgs 13:2-3; 2 Kgs 17:7-18), and ultimately the kingdom of Israel went into captivity to Assyria for her idolatry.<\/p>\n<p>Rehoboam, the first king of the southern kingdom, spread high places all over his domain (1 Kgs 14:23-24). Though King Asa launched a revival of true religion, he did not remove the high places (15:12-14). Jehoshaphat also initiated revival, but again the high places remained (22:43). On the other hand, his son Jehoram and his wife, Athaliah, encouraged their construction (2 Chr 21:11). Joash, during his revival, did not eliminate the high places (2 Kgs 12:3), nor did the good king Uzziah in similar efforts (15:3-4). Ahaz made no pretense of faithfulness to God, and actively encouraged the idolatry of the pagan sanctuaries (16:3-4). Finally, Hezekiah launched a campaign against the high places (2 Chr 31:1), but his policies were reversed during the reign of his wicked son Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:2-9). Josiah led the last Judean revival and again attacked the high places (23:5, 8).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets Isaiah (Is 15:2; 16:12), Jeremiah (Jer 48:35), Ezekiel (Ez 6:3), Hosea (Hos 10:8), and Amos (Am 7:9) roundly condemned these centers of idolatry. <em>See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion; Gods and Goddesses; Grove; Idols, Idolatry.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIGH PLACE Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, lo...","summary_en":"HIGH PLACE Phrase commonly translated from the Hebrew bamah, which apparently derived from a word originally meaning “the back (or ridge) of an animal.” Thus it came to refer to a height or hill or a stone burial cairn. Usually it was an elevated worship center, such as the ones referred to in Numbers 33:51-52, 1 Samuel 9:13-14, 2 Kings 12:3, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Ezekiel 36:1-2. But sometimes (as in 2 Kgs 23:8) it was a bamah of the gate, a sanctuary with no special reference to height, lo...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61802,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People","title_en":"God’s Judgment of His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","summary_en":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89428,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People","title_en":"God’s Judgment of His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","summary_en":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117054,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People","title_en":"God’s Judgment of His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","summary_en":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144680,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People","title_en":"God’s Judgment of His People","content_ro":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>God’s Judgment of His People<\/h3>\n<p>Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes during this period, God’s people are portrayed positively. The people of Judah rejoiced over the removal of Athaliah and the installation of Joash as king (11:12, 18-20). At times, the people were instrumental in the succession of kings (14:21; 23:30) or were responsive to godly leadership (11:17; 18:36; 23:1-3, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>Yet despite God’s repeated warnings through his prophets (17:13), the people of both kingdoms became set in their apostasy (17:14-19, 22). So God’s righteous wrath burned against them and their leaders, and he brought his threatened judgment upon them (17:22-23; 21:10-15; 22:17; 23:26-27; 24:20; 25:21). God acted in accordance with the stipulations in his covenant with them (Lev 26:27-39), even though he loved his people and longed to restore them (see Hos 11:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>God never gave up caring for his people. He rescued them from Sennacherib (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37) and promised that a remnant would again thrive in the land (19:30-31). Even the good treatment Jehoiachin received in Babylon (25:27-30) no doubt renewed hope among the repentant of God’s people. God promised to one day restore his people from exile and give them fellowship with him in the land once again, ruling over them through his chosen king, the descendant of David (Jer 23:3-6; see also Isa 11; Rom 11:5-36).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 26:27-39; 2 Kgs 17:7-23; 21:9-16; 23:26-27; 24:20–25:21; Ps 62:12; Prov 11:31; Isa 3:10-11; Jer 1:16; 17:10; 23:3-6; Ezek 7:1-9; 33:18-20; 34:17-24; 39:23-24; Hos 11:1-11; Amos 3:2; Matt 25:24-30; Luke 12:47-48; 13:6-9; John 5:45-47; Rom 11:5-36; Col 3:23-25; Heb 12:25; Jas 2:12-13; 1 Pet 1:17; Rev 2:1–3:22<\/p>","summary_ro":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","summary_en":"God’s Judgment of His People Although the kings of Israel and Judah had a major role in the history of the divided kingdom, the people also played a part in what occurred. As they followed their wicked rulers (2 Kgs 3:3; 17:22; 21:9, 11, 16), their own hearts strayed from God (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 17:9-11; 18:4; 22:17). They participated in the religious practices initiated by Jeroboam I (10:28-31; 17:21-22) and worshiped at pagan shrines (12:3; 14:4; 15:4, 35; 18:4). Sometimes during this p...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":15704,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Heart","title_en":"Heart","content_ro":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEART<\/h3>\n<p>Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being.<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">leb<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">kardia<\/span>) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhysicalHeart\">Physical Heart<\/p>\n<p>That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physical food and wine affect the heart (Jgs 19:5; Ps 104:15; Acts 14:17), and the heart can “faint” and “tremble.” The heart’s position in the body yields an obvious metaphor for “the center” (Mt 12:40).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PyschologicalHeart\">Pyschological Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart attends intellectually (e.g., Jer 12:11); it also perceives (Jn 12:40), understands (1 Kgs 3:9), debates (Mk 2:6), reflects (Lk 2:19), remembers (Lk 2:51), thinks (Dt 8:17), imagines (Lk 1:51), is wise (Eccl 1:17, <span>kjv<\/span>), has technical skill (Ex 28:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Emotionally, the heart experiences intoxicated merriment (1 Sm 25:36), gladness (Is 30:29), joy (Jn 16:22), sorrow (Neh 2:2), anguish (Rom 9:2), bitterness (Prv 14:10), anxiety (1 Sm 4:13), despair (Eccl 2:20), love (2 Sm 14:1), trust (Ps 112:7), affection (2 Cor 7:3), lust (Mt 5:28), callousness (Mk 3:5), hatred (Lv 19:17), fear (Gn 42:28), jealousy (Jas 3:14), desire (Rom 10:1), discouragement (Nm 32:9), sympathy (Ex 23:9), anger (Dt 19:6, <span>kjv<\/span>), irresolution (2 Chr 13:7, <span>kjv<\/span>), and much more.<\/p>\n<p>Volitionally, the heart can purpose (1 Cor 4:5), incline to (1 Sm 14:7), prompt (2 Kgs 12:4; cf. Prv 4:23), be steadfast (Acts 11:23), be willing (Ex 35:22), contrive evil (Acts 5:4), or follow its “treasure” (Mt 6:21).<\/p>\n<p>Morally, the heart can be gentle, lowly (Mt 11:29), holy (1 Thes 3:13), faithful (Neh 9:8), upright (Ps 97:11), pure, single-minded (Jas 4:8), clean (Acts 15:8), loving toward God (Mk 12:30) and others (1 Pt 1:22), hardened, or sensitive (Ez 11:19). Scripture’s emphasis falls upon the heart’s evil (Gn 6:5 and throughout), as self-deceiving (Jas 1:26), deceitful (Jer 17:9), avaricious (Mt 6:19-21), lustful (Mt 5:28), arrogant (Is 9:9), impious (Acts 7:51), perverse (Ps 101:4), and impenitent (Rom 2:5). Nothing defiles a man worse than his own heart (Mk 7:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Yet out of the heart can come good (Lk 6:45; 8:15). Even when frustrated by circumstances or by fear, the heart’s good intention remains good; its evil intent, bad (1 Kgs 8:18; Mt 5:28).<\/p>\n<p>Being so complex, a person’s heart is sadly divided, and Scripture often extols a perfect, whole, true (i.e., united) heart (Gn 20:5; Ps 86:11; Acts 8:37). The “heart” signifies the total inner self, a person’s hidden core of being (1 Pt 3:4), with which one communes, which one “pours out” in prayer, words, and deeds (Ps 62:8; Mt 15:18-19). It is the genuine self, distinguished from appearance, public position, and physical presence (1 Sm 16:7; 2 Cor 5:12; 1 Thes 2:17). And this “heart-self” has its own nature, character, and disposition (Dn 4:16; 7:4, <span>kjv<\/span>; cf. Mt 12:33-37).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheSpiritualHeart\">The Spiritual Heart<\/p>\n<p>The heart is especially important in biblical religion. The mystery of the hidden self is fully known to God and to Christ (Jer 17:10; Lk 9:47; Rom 8:27), and the heart is the seat of our knowledge of God (2 Cor 4:6). The state of heart governs the vision of God (Mt 5:8); from the heart one speaks to God (Ps 27:8); the heart is the locus of divine indwelling (2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Eph 3:17).<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, moral evil in the heart is seen in biblical perspective as sin against God. Senseless hearts are darkened, often secretly idolatrous, far from God, “not right” before God (Dt 29:18-19; Mt 15:8; Acts 8:21; Rom 1:21). Yet the Lord will not despise a broken, contrite heart (Ps 51:17). When one’s heart is turned toward God, he promises to make it sensitive to divine things, renewed and purified (Dt 4:29; 2 Kgs 23:25; Ps 51:10; Jl 2:13; Ez 36:25-27). God’s law shall then be written on the heart as the inward guide and incentive (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10; cf. 2 Cor 3:2-3).<\/p>\n<p>In Christian terms, such transformation involves believing the gospel from the “honest and good heart” that provides fruitful soil for the Word of God (Lk 8:15; Rom 10:9). The true heart draws near to God, loves him with all its intellect, feeling, and will (Lk 10:27; Heb 10:22). Then God gives strength, reward, renewal, grace, peace, and joy to the heart (Ps 73:26; Is 57:15; Acts 2:46; Phil 4:7; Heb 13:9). So the ancient ideal becomes possible again, that of being “a man after God’s own heart” (1 Sm 13:14; Acts 13:22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","summary_en":"HEART Vital bodily organ; emotional center of one’s being. In Hebrew and Greek, as in modern English, “heart” is used to designate a physical organ as well as the emotional center of one’s being. “Heart” (Hebrew leb; Greek kardia) occurs approximately 1,000 times in the Bible, though it is often disguised in translation. The range of meaning is great. Physical Heart That the beating heart indicates life seems implied in 1 Samuel 25:37-39 (see nlt mg), despite the delay in Nabal’s death. Physi...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18692,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehoash","title_en":"Jehoash","content_ro":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","summary_en":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36994,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47337,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:4","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","summary_en":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74963,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:4","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","summary_en":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102589,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:4","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","summary_en":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130215,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:4","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:4-8<\/strong> Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for <em>repairs . . . needed at the Temple.<\/em> Such <em>money<\/em> would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, <em>the priests still had not repaired the Temple.<\/em> So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the <em>repairs<\/em> (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","summary_en":"12:4-8 Joash ordered the collection of funds from the cities of Judah (2 Chr 24:5) for repairs . . . needed at the Temple. Such money would come from special Levitical levies, a census tax (2 Chr 24:9), and voluntary offerings. After some time, the priests still had not repaired the Temple. So Joash took personal control of the project and put others in charge of the repairs (see also study note on 2 Chr 24:4-8).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":18694,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehoash","title_en":"Jehoash","content_ro":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","summary_en":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":2673,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ark of the Covenant","title_en":"Ark of the Covenant","content_ro":"<h3>ARK OF THE COVENANT<\/h3>\n<p>Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and out with gold. It was fitted with two pairs of rings through which poles were slid to make it portable. The ark would also serve as container for the two tablets of the covenant that would be given to Moses (Ex 25:16). Since the tablets were also called the “testimony,” the ark was sometimes called the “ark of the testimony.” Also in the ark were placed a pot of manna, the miraculous food provided by God (Ex 16:33), and Aaron’s rod that had budded (Nm 17:10; Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The lid of the ark was called the “mercy seat” or “place of mercy” (Ex 25:17). It was a slab of gold fitting over the top of the ark and having an importance of its own. Once a year the high priest was to make atonement for the people of Israel by sprinkling the mercy seat with the blood of bulls and goats (Lv 16:2-16). In fact, the English expression “mercy seat” is related to the Hebrew word for “atone.” The lid was called a “seat” because the Lord was considered as enthroned between two cherubim (winged creatures) positioned opposite each other (Ps 99:1). The Lord spoke to Moses from between the cherubim (Nm 7:89).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was sometimes referred to simply as the ark (Ex 37:1; Nm 3:31), at other times as the “ark of the covenant” (Nm 4:5; Jos 4:16). The Israelites were thus reminded that the ark’s holiness was not magical but derived from the holy law of God contained inside it. That name also confronted the Israelites with their need to follow the commands God had given in his “covenant.”<\/p>\n<p>Those commands were given by the God of the covenant (or promise) who had rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt and who had promised to be the ever-present God of his people (Ex 6:6-7). Hence the ark was most widely known as the “ark of the covenant.” Sometimes that name was expanded to “the Ark of the <span>Lord<\/span>’s covenant” (1 Chr 28:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>At times the ark was called “the Ark of God.” It was a visible sign that the invisible God was dwelling in Israel’s midst. It had a devastating and often deadly “holiness.” The people of Beth-shemesh were severely punished after they had treated the ark without proper reverence (1 Sm 6:19). A man named Uzzah was killed by the Lord when he touched it with his hand to keep it from tumbling to the ground from a cart (2 Sm 6:6-9). The ark was dangerous to touch because it was the very symbol of God’s presence. For this reason God commanded that the ark be placed in the Holy of Holies, separated from the rest of the tabernacle (and later the temple) by a heavy veil (Ex 26:31-33; Heb 9:3-5); no sinful man could look upon the glory of God above the ark and live (Lv 16:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites journeyed from Mt Sinai to Canaan, the ark accompanied them in their trek through the desert. It was to be a constant reminder of the holy presence of their God. The ark was spoken of in the accounts of that journey almost as though it were endowed with personal features (Nm 10:33-36). Although the wrapping and carrying of the sacred objects were carefully detailed (Nm 4), God’s relationship with the ark was so close that the ark seemed to be “alive.”<\/p>\n<p>The ark clearly played a benevolent role during the desert journey. A group of Israelites rebelled and tried to invade Canaan on their own, although neither the ark nor Moses went with them (Nm 14:44). The result was defeat at the hands of their enemies (Nm 14:45). The ark played an important role in the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:13-17; 4:9-10), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 6:6-11), and the life of the Israelites in their new land (Jos 8:33; Jgs 20:27). There is no hint of superstitious or magical use of the ark; it was not a fetish, talisman, or charm. Yet it had solemn significance as the container of God’s “testimony” and as the pledge of his presence.<\/p>\n<p>A sharp contrast to the role of the ark in Joshua’s day is found in later times. In the days of Eli and his sons, that is, at the end of the period of the judges, religious life in Israel was at a low ebb. The ark was still venerated but looked upon as a fetish to ensure success or victory automatically. When losing a battle with the Philistines, the Israelites rushed the sacred chest to the battlefield, thereby hoping to gain a victory (1 Sm 4:1-10). But the Lord did not tolerate such flagrant misuse of the ark. He allowed it to be captured by the uncircumcised Philistines (1 Sm 4:11) and inflicted defeat on Israel and death on the house of the high priest Eli (1 Sm 4:13-22).<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, God vindicated the honor of the ark when it was offered to Dagon, the god of the Philistines. The account of the efforts of the pagan Philistines to get rid of the ark is humorous (1 Sm 5–6). The biblical writer dramatically illustrated that the holy ark could neither be treated superstitiously by God’s people nor mocked by his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel, a great reformer and prophet, made no attempt to restore the ark to a place of prominence after it was returned to Israel. He allowed it to remain in Kiriath-jearim (1 Sm 6:21; 7:2). Samuel first had to bring Israel back to obedience to God’s covenant before the ark of the covenant could be of any use. David, described as a king after God’s own heart and chosen to replace the disobedient Saul, exerted efforts to bring the ark back to a prominent place (2 Sm 6:1-17). It may have been to David’s political advantage to add prestige to his newly established capital, Jerusalem, formerly the Canaanite stronghold of Jebus. But Psalm 132 describes David’s concern for the honor of God and for the ark. In a moment of great religious joy and enthusiasm he addressed God directly: “Arise, O <span>Lord<\/span>, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (v 8, <span>rsv<\/span>). To restless David, the ark had also been “restless” as long as Israel had not yet obtained its “rest,” that is, as long as Canaan had not been completely conquered. Some measure of peace had already come during Joshua’s time (Jos 21:43-45), but much remained to be done. By conquering Jebus, David virtually completed the conquest of the Promised Land. Finally the land had rest and the Lord could then “dwell” in his temple, the suitable resting place for the ark. Nevertheless, David’s desire to build a temple for the ark was not granted (2 Sm 7:1-17). He was told that his son Solomon would build a home for the ark and for the Lord. Solomon erected a magnificent temple with a place for the ark in the most holy part, behind the curtains (1 Kgs 8:1-11).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARK OF THE COVENANT<\/h3>\n<p>Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and out with gold. It was fitted with two pairs of rings through which poles were slid to make it portable. The ark would also serve as container for the two tablets of the covenant that would be given to Moses (Ex 25:16). Since the tablets were also called the “testimony,” the ark was sometimes called the “ark of the testimony.” Also in the ark were placed a pot of manna, the miraculous food provided by God (Ex 16:33), and Aaron’s rod that had budded (Nm 17:10; Heb 9:4).<\/p>\n<p>The lid of the ark was called the “mercy seat” or “place of mercy” (Ex 25:17). It was a slab of gold fitting over the top of the ark and having an importance of its own. Once a year the high priest was to make atonement for the people of Israel by sprinkling the mercy seat with the blood of bulls and goats (Lv 16:2-16). In fact, the English expression “mercy seat” is related to the Hebrew word for “atone.” The lid was called a “seat” because the Lord was considered as enthroned between two cherubim (winged creatures) positioned opposite each other (Ps 99:1). The Lord spoke to Moses from between the cherubim (Nm 7:89).<\/p>\n<p>The ark was sometimes referred to simply as the ark (Ex 37:1; Nm 3:31), at other times as the “ark of the covenant” (Nm 4:5; Jos 4:16). The Israelites were thus reminded that the ark’s holiness was not magical but derived from the holy law of God contained inside it. That name also confronted the Israelites with their need to follow the commands God had given in his “covenant.”<\/p>\n<p>Those commands were given by the God of the covenant (or promise) who had rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt and who had promised to be the ever-present God of his people (Ex 6:6-7). Hence the ark was most widely known as the “ark of the covenant.” Sometimes that name was expanded to “the Ark of the <span>Lord<\/span>’s covenant” (1 Chr 28:18, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>At times the ark was called “the Ark of God.” It was a visible sign that the invisible God was dwelling in Israel’s midst. It had a devastating and often deadly “holiness.” The people of Beth-shemesh were severely punished after they had treated the ark without proper reverence (1 Sm 6:19). A man named Uzzah was killed by the Lord when he touched it with his hand to keep it from tumbling to the ground from a cart (2 Sm 6:6-9). The ark was dangerous to touch because it was the very symbol of God’s presence. For this reason God commanded that the ark be placed in the Holy of Holies, separated from the rest of the tabernacle (and later the temple) by a heavy veil (Ex 26:31-33; Heb 9:3-5); no sinful man could look upon the glory of God above the ark and live (Lv 16:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites journeyed from Mt Sinai to Canaan, the ark accompanied them in their trek through the desert. It was to be a constant reminder of the holy presence of their God. The ark was spoken of in the accounts of that journey almost as though it were endowed with personal features (Nm 10:33-36). Although the wrapping and carrying of the sacred objects were carefully detailed (Nm 4), God’s relationship with the ark was so close that the ark seemed to be “alive.”<\/p>\n<p>The ark clearly played a benevolent role during the desert journey. A group of Israelites rebelled and tried to invade Canaan on their own, although neither the ark nor Moses went with them (Nm 14:44). The result was defeat at the hands of their enemies (Nm 14:45). The ark played an important role in the crossing of the Jordan (Jos 3:13-17; 4:9-10), the conquest of Jericho (Jos 6:6-11), and the life of the Israelites in their new land (Jos 8:33; Jgs 20:27). There is no hint of superstitious or magical use of the ark; it was not a fetish, talisman, or charm. Yet it had solemn significance as the container of God’s “testimony” and as the pledge of his presence.<\/p>\n<p>A sharp contrast to the role of the ark in Joshua’s day is found in later times. In the days of Eli and his sons, that is, at the end of the period of the judges, religious life in Israel was at a low ebb. The ark was still venerated but looked upon as a fetish to ensure success or victory automatically. When losing a battle with the Philistines, the Israelites rushed the sacred chest to the battlefield, thereby hoping to gain a victory (1 Sm 4:1-10). But the Lord did not tolerate such flagrant misuse of the ark. He allowed it to be captured by the uncircumcised Philistines (1 Sm 4:11) and inflicted defeat on Israel and death on the house of the high priest Eli (1 Sm 4:13-22).<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, God vindicated the honor of the ark when it was offered to Dagon, the god of the Philistines. The account of the efforts of the pagan Philistines to get rid of the ark is humorous (1 Sm 5–6). The biblical writer dramatically illustrated that the holy ark could neither be treated superstitiously by God’s people nor mocked by his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel, a great reformer and prophet, made no attempt to restore the ark to a place of prominence after it was returned to Israel. He allowed it to remain in Kiriath-jearim (1 Sm 6:21; 7:2). Samuel first had to bring Israel back to obedience to God’s covenant before the ark of the covenant could be of any use. David, described as a king after God’s own heart and chosen to replace the disobedient Saul, exerted efforts to bring the ark back to a prominent place (2 Sm 6:1-17). It may have been to David’s political advantage to add prestige to his newly established capital, Jerusalem, formerly the Canaanite stronghold of Jebus. But Psalm 132 describes David’s concern for the honor of God and for the ark. In a moment of great religious joy and enthusiasm he addressed God directly: “Arise, O <span>Lord<\/span>, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might” (v 8, <span>rsv<\/span>). To restless David, the ark had also been “restless” as long as Israel had not yet obtained its “rest,” that is, as long as Canaan had not been completely conquered. Some measure of peace had already come during Joshua’s time (Jos 21:43-45), but much remained to be done. By conquering Jebus, David virtually completed the conquest of the Promised Land. Finally the land had rest and the Lord could then “dwell” in his temple, the suitable resting place for the ark. Nevertheless, David’s desire to build a temple for the ark was not granted (2 Sm 7:1-17). He was told that his son Solomon would build a home for the ark and for the Lord. Solomon erected a magnificent temple with a place for the ark in the most holy part, behind the curtains (1 Kgs 8:1-11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARK OF THE COVENANT Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and o...","summary_en":"ARK OF THE COVENANT Most important piece of furniture in the wilderness tabernacle (tent-sanctuary) that God instructed Moses to build (Ex 25:10-22). The Hebrew word for ark can also mean “chest” (2 Kgs 12:9-10) or “coffin” (Gn 50:26), but it is not the same word used for Noah’s ark. The ark that Moses had Bezalel make was an oblong chest made of acacia wood (Ex 31:1-5; 37:1-9). The chest measured approximately 45 by 27 by 27 inches (114 by 69 by 69 centimeters), and was overlaid inside and o...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47338,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","summary_en":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74964,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","summary_en":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102590,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","summary_en":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130216,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:9","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:9-11<\/strong> Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing <em>a large chest<\/em> at an accessible place to receive <em>the people’s contributions.<\/em> When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the <em>construction supervisors<\/em> and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","summary_en":"12:9-11 Joash’s solution for securing and distributing the money for Temple repairs included placing a large chest at an accessible place to receive the people’s contributions. When Joash informed the people of the need for a tax and voluntary offerings to complete the repairs, they “gladly brought their money and filled the chest with it” (2 Chr 24:9-10). With sufficient funds on hand, the money was given to the construction supervisors and the repair and restoration of the Temple began.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":6108,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Carpenter","title_en":"Carpenter","content_ro":"<h3>CARPENTER<\/h3>\n<p>One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CARPENTER<\/h3>\n<p>One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"CARPENTER One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).","summary_en":"CARPENTER One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":24598,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Masonry Mason","title_en":"Masonry Mason","content_ro":"<h3>MASON, MASONRY<\/h3>\n<p>Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MASON, MASONRY<\/h3>\n<p>Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MASON, MASONRY Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).","summary_en":"MASON, MASONRY Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36318,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Stonecutter","title_en":"Stonecutter","content_ro":"<h3>STONECUTTER<\/h3>\n<p>A stonemason who removed stone from the quarry and squared it up for use in large buildings like palaces, the temple, administrative buildings, and large houses (1 Kgs 5:18, 2 Kgs 12:12; 1 Chr 22:2, 15). At first, the Israelites used Phoenician artisans, but they soon learned the art themselves and produced many fine buildings, such as those in Samaria. Herod’s masons left behind beautiful masonry in Jerusalem, Hebron, Samaria, and elsewhere. Some of these artisans produced fine work for the interior of buildings to be used in windows, doors, lintels, and capitals for pillars. One special class of stonecutters, the engravers (Ex 28:11), worked with precious stones to produce seals, ornamental pieces, and jewelry.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>STONECUTTER<\/h3>\n<p>A stonemason who removed stone from the quarry and squared it up for use in large buildings like palaces, the temple, administrative buildings, and large houses (1 Kgs 5:18, 2 Kgs 12:12; 1 Chr 22:2, 15). At first, the Israelites used Phoenician artisans, but they soon learned the art themselves and produced many fine buildings, such as those in Samaria. Herod’s masons left behind beautiful masonry in Jerusalem, Hebron, Samaria, and elsewhere. Some of these artisans produced fine work for the interior of buildings to be used in windows, doors, lintels, and capitals for pillars. One special class of stonecutters, the engravers (Ex 28:11), worked with precious stones to produce seals, ornamental pieces, and jewelry.<\/p>","summary_ro":"STONECUTTER A stonemason who removed stone from the quarry and squared it up for use in large buildings like palaces, the temple, administrative buildings, and large houses (1 Kgs 5:18, 2 Kgs 12:12; 1 Chr 22:2, 15). At first, the Israelites used Phoenician artisans, but they soon learned the art themselves and produced many fine buildings, such as those in Samaria. Herod’s masons left behind beautiful masonry in Jerusalem, Hebron, Samaria, and elsewhere. Some of these artisans produced fine w...","summary_en":"STONECUTTER A stonemason who removed stone from the quarry and squared it up for use in large buildings like palaces, the temple, administrative buildings, and large houses (1 Kgs 5:18, 2 Kgs 12:12; 1 Chr 22:2, 15). At first, the Israelites used Phoenician artisans, but they soon learned the art themselves and produced many fine buildings, such as those in Samaria. Herod’s masons left behind beautiful masonry in Jerusalem, Hebron, Samaria, and elsewhere. Some of these artisans produced fine w...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":28263,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":41597,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69223,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96849,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124475,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Arameans","title_en":"Arameans","content_ro":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Arameans<\/h3>\n<p>The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5).<\/p>\n<p>When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread out to the east, west, and north. By around 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, Aramean tribes had spread throughout Syria and had expanded into northern Transjordan. They set up a number of powerful Aramean city-states, including Zobah and Damascus, that came into conflict with the Israelites beginning in the time of David (see 2 Sam 8:3-8; 10:6-25).<\/p>\n<p>After Solomon’s death and the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms, Aramean Damascus became a powerful and opportunistic player in the political struggles between the two states. When war broke out between Israel and Judah in the years 890–880 <span>BC<\/span>, King Asa of Israel sought aid from Ben-hadad I of Damascus (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Roughly thirty years later, in the early 850s <span>BC<\/span>, Ben-hadad invaded Israel, but Ahab defeated him both at Samaria (20:1-21) and at Aphek the following year (20:22-34). After three years of peace between Israel and Damascus, hostilities broke out again in 853 <span>BC<\/span>, resulting in the battle in which Ahab was killed (22:29-37). Aramean Damascus continued to inflict losses on the kingdom of Israel for the next several decades (see 2 Kgs 8:28-29; 12:17-18; 13:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, the Aramean city-states began feeling pressure from Assyria. Damascus was first defeated by Assyria around 838 <span>BC<\/span> and was forced to become a tribute-paying vassal of Assyria in 803 <span>BC<\/span>. The resulting weakness of Damascus helped enable Jehoash (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>) to defeat the Arameans and expel them from Israel’s territory around 795 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 13:14-25). Later, Jeroboam II (793–753 <span>BC<\/span>) was able to force Damascus to pay tribute to him (see 2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>Around 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Arameans of Damascus joined forces with Israel to subjugate Judah. They captured much land, but their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5; see also 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the prophets Isaiah and Amos predicted the city’s doom (Isa 8:4; 17:1; Amos 1:3-5). But rather than trust in God, King Ahaz of Judah turned to the Assyrians for protection, who responded to his gifts by sacking Damascus and exiling its population in 733\/732 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 16:7-11). Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Arameans, Aramaic, eventually became the language for diplomacy and administration all over the Near East (see, e.g., 2 Kgs 18:26). During the Exile, the Jews adopted the Aramaic language; portions of Ezra and Daniel are written in Aramaic. Aramaic was the <em>lingua franca<\/em> from Egypt to India during the Persian period and was widely spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day (see Mark 5:41; 1 Cor 16:22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 10:22-23; 22:20-21; 25:20; 28:1-7; Deut 26:5; 2 Sam 8:3-4; 10:17-19; 1 Kgs 15:18; 1 Kgs 20:1-34; 22:29-37; 2 Kgs 13:25; 16:9-13; 17:24-34; Hos 12:12; Amos 1:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","summary_en":"Arameans The Arameans were a Semitic group, descendants of Shem (Gen 10:22-23; cp. Gen 22:20-21). Bethuel and Laban were known as Arameans (Gen 25:20; 28:1-7). Jacob lived for some twenty years with them in Aramean territory (Gen 28–31; Hos 12:12), and the people of Israel remembered that their forefathers were (at least culturally) Arameans (Deut 26:5). When the Arameans emerged into history around the time of Abraham, they were settled around the central Euphrates, from which they spread ou...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1465,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Amos","title_en":"Book of Amos","content_ro":"<h3>AMOS, B<span>ook of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Significance<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The preacher of the sermons (or oracles) in the book was undoubtedly Amos, a herdsman and a dresser (farmer) of fig trees, from the village of Tekoa, south of Jerusalem. He received from God a vision of judgment on Israel and went north to Bethel, just across the border between Judah and Israel, to deliver his sermons. All we know about the prophet is contained in the superscription (1:1-2) and a biographical section (7:10-14) of the book of Amos, plus what can be learned about him from the style and content of the rest of the book.<\/p>\n<p>Did Amos write down his prophecies himself? Although scholars have raised many questions about the authorship of Amos, there is no convincing reason to regard the book as the work of anyone else. Some have suggested that the sermons were passed on by word of mouth for a long time before they were written down in final form. The Hebrew text, however, is in much better shape than would be expected (had it come through prolonged oral transmission). The many first-person references and vigor of expression imply strongly that Amos himself put much of his prophecy into writing soon after delivering it at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p>Another speculative proposal is that the visions described in the book (7:1-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4) were compiled by Amos before he began his ministry to the northern kingdom, and the oracles (chs 1–6) were composed after that time. The two sections could have been joined into one book much later, during or after the Babylonian exile, with some sections inserted at that time. Other prophecies, however, such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah, contain both oracle and vision sections that scholars have not attempted to divide, and the internal evidence does not make such a division necessary with Amos. Both sections contain similar concerns; in both the visions (7:1-3) and the oracles (5:1-7), Amos appears in the role of intercessor on behalf of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>According to the superscription, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (1:1), or between 792 and 740 <span>BC<\/span>. The content of his message fits what is known about the situation in Israel in that period. It is difficult to be more exact about the beginning and ending of Amos’s prophetic ministry within that time span. The vision came to him “two years before the earthquake” (1:1), but another biblical reference to presumably the same earthquake places it during the days of King Uzziah of Judah (Zec 14:5). Archaeological excavations at Hazor seem to have yielded evidence for an earthquake, which has been dated at approximately 760 <span>BC<\/span>. Amos also contains a prophetic reference to a solar eclipse (8:9); such an eclipse has been calculated to have occurred about 763 <span>BC<\/span>. After King Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, he lived in isolation while Judah was under a co-regency (2 Chr 26:21). Therefore, Amos’s mention of Uzziah as king (1:1) probably sets 760 <span>BC<\/span> as the latest possible date for Amos’s ministry.<\/p>\n<p>The doom that came upon Israel after Amos’s prophecy was the conquest by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>). Although Amos referred to impending captivity, he never mentioned Assyria as the captor, although he did say that captivity would take Israel to a land east of Damascus (5:27). Probably Amos was not thinking specifically of the rising power of Assyria but only of the inevitable consequences of Israel’s idolatry and hypocrisy. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, it seems reasonable to date the beginning of Amos’s prophecies at Bethel to about 760 <span>BC<\/span>, or approximately the middle of the period during which both Uzziah and Jeroboam II were on their thrones. We do not know how long his ministry lasted; it may have been only a few months.<\/p>\n<p>Amos had been caring for his flocks in the Judean hills south of Jerusalem when God told him, “Go and prophesy to my people in Israel” (7:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). He may have been familiar with the more urban north from earlier trips there to sell wool or fruit, or the pagan worship and social wrongs there may have made a sudden impact on him after his call to prophesy. At any rate, his writings reveal not only his rural Judean background but also a firsthand knowledge of conditions in the northern kingdom of Israel. Although his prophecies were directed primarily to Israel, he also denounced the sin of Judah, predicting that its capital, Jerusalem, would be burned (2:4-5). Several passages are directed at inhabitants of Samaria, capital of Israel (4:1, 11; 6:1), with which Amos was obviously familiar. He could have traveled on to Samaria from Bethel, or he could have learned of its splendors from the boasts of its citizens. He could have addressed them directly as they came from the capital city to worship at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The eighth century <span>BC<\/span> was a critical time in Jewish history. Both kingdoms of the divided nation had risen to heights of economic affluence that had not been experienced since the days of Solomon. Yet internal religious decay was sapping the strength of both kingdoms, and their social fabric was being destroyed. A new wealthy class was benefiting from the affluence of the time, growing ever richer while poor people became poorer than ever.<\/p>\n<p>In 803 <span>BC<\/span>, the conquest of Syrian Damascus by the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III had silenced one of Israel’s major enemies. With the Syrians out of the picture, the kingdom of Israel was able to expand its borders under King Joash (2 Kgs 13:25), and for a time even the thrust of Assyrian power westward was diminished. Israel and Judah entered a period of rest from constant warfare and turned their attention to internal affairs.<\/p>\n<p>Joash’s son, Jeroboam II, became king of Israel in 793 and reigned until 753 <span>BC<\/span>. Uzziah was on the throne of Judah from 792 to 740 <span>BC<\/span>. Under these two kings, Judah and Israel controlled a territory that was almost as large as Solomon’s empire had been. Their wealth had grown both from expansion of trade and from the booty of conquered territories.<\/p>\n<p>Archaeology has yielded information about industrial activity within the nations, such as an impressive dyeing industry at Debir. Excavations at Samaria have produced large numbers of ivory inlays that confirm Amos’s description of the wealthy in the capital city (6:4). The city of Samaria was protected by a huge double wall of unusual thickness. A palace, probably Jeroboam’s, dominated the city with a massive tower.<\/p>\n<p>The splendor and prosperity of the time, however, was masking the spread of internal decay. Oppression of the poor by many in the wealthy classes not only threatened the unity of the nation but also meant that God’s laws were being violated. In his denunciations of the cruel treatment of the poor (5:11-13; 8:4-10), Amos warned of the inevitable punishment for disobeying God’s laws.<\/p>\n<p>The nation of Israel was guilty of more than social sins against the covenant. It was also adopting pagan religious practices. Canaanite religious influence intruded into the fabric of the nation of Israel. Excavation of a palace storehouse in Samaria uncovered many <em>ostraca<\/em> (pieces of broken pottery used for writing short messages such as letters, receipts, etc.) containing Hebrew names compounded with “Baal,” a chief god of the Canaanite religion.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the gradual deterioration, false optimism seems to have prevailed. Amos found people desiring the Day of the Lord (5:18) and sought to correct their misunderstanding: the Day of the Lord prophesied in the Scriptures would be a time of judgment on all sinners. A more immediate judgment was to come, however. Assyria began to strengthen its position in the world and to resume its expansionist policies. Under the leadership of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>), Assyria regained a position of world dominance. Eventually, Israel was attacked by Shalmaneser V of Assyria. Soon afterward, in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, Samaria was occupied. No doubt when the Assyrians were sweeping into Israel, many of the people who had ignored the message of Amos then realized that a prophet of God had been among them.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Superscription (1:1)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet introduces himself as a shepherd, perhaps implying that it is more than sheep he wants to keep from straying.<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Oracles (1:2–6:14)<\/h5>\n<p>This section begins with a picture of the great power of God, who acts in history to judge the nations (1:2).<\/p>\n<h6>Judgment on Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:3)<\/h6>\n<p>The prophet first speaks against Damascus, then moves on, pronouncing doom on various peoples in ever closer concentric circles, “homing in” on Israel. One may imagine the citizens of Israel applauding God’s judgment on other nations until, with shocking effect, Amos accuses Israel of similar sins.<\/p>\n<p>Damascus was the capital of Syria, northeast of Israel, and the center of Syrian influence. Syria had mistreated Israel during Hazael’s reign in Damascus (842–806 <span>BC<\/span>). Hazael “whittled down” Israel in a number of campaigns (2 Kgs 10:32-33; 13:3-5, 22-24). In their campaign into the territory of Gilead, the Syrians destroyed most of Israel’s army as though they were dust on a threshing floor (2 Kgs 13:7). Hence, Amos denounces Syria for threshing Gilead as grain is threshed with iron rods (Am 1:3). He predicts that Syria will be destroyed and its people deported to Kir, which Amos understood to be their place of origin (9:7). (For the fulfillment of this prophecy, see 2 Kgs 16:9.)<\/p>\n<p>Amos next turned to Gaza, a Philistine city in southwest Palestine. Gaza probably represents the Philistines as a whole, since three other of their five major cities are also mentioned (1:8). The fifth, Gath, had already been conquered by Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17). Amos denounced the Philistines for what must have been a border raid on Israel in which many were carried off into slavery (1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The Phoenician city of Tyre is cited next. Tyre was on the Mediterranean, north of Israel and southwest of Damascus. Destruction of Tyre, like that of the Philistine cities, is predicted as punishment for making slaves of conquered Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Edom is next, south of the Dead Sea. Edom had perennially harassed the Israelites and is referred to in a negative light many times in the OT. Edom is said to have been pitiless toward Israel, his brother (1:11).<\/p>\n<p>Ammon, just to the southeast of Israel, is also judged. The particularly violent incident referred to (1:13) evidently occurred in one of their many attempts to push northward into the Israelite territory of Gilead.<\/p>\n<p>Moab is the last of the surrounding nations to be denounced, with reference to what may have been a well-known incident of desecration of the dead (2:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Oracles against Israel and Judah (2:4-16)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Judah and Israel were at peace at the time, their enmity had continued after dissolution of the united kingdom. Amos accuses Judah of rejecting “the law of the Lord” and predicts the burning of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The oracle against Israel is longer than the others. Amos carefully specifies the social nature of Israel’s sin, making the point that Israel is no better than the surrounding nations. Israel deserves the same punishment. Just as some of the nations were guilty of taking people into slavery, Israel is selling her own poor who cannot repay their debts (2:6). Under Mosaic law it was illegal to keep overnight a garment pledged as security for a loan, since it might be the only source of warmth the debtor had (Ex 22:26-27). Rich people in Israel were attending religious feasts in such clothing “stolen” from the poor (2:8).<\/p>\n<p>Amos reminds Israel of all the good things God has done for them (2:9-11). But because Israel has chosen to continue in disobedience, the nation will not escape impending judgment (2:12-16).<\/p>\n<h6>Denunciation of and Warning against Israel (3:1–6:14)<\/h6>\n<p>Amos substantiates his prophetic authority with a lesson on cause and effect (3:1-8). A lion roars when it has prey, and people fear when a trumpet sounds an alarm. If calamity comes to a city, God has allowed it. God, who reveals his secrets to his prophets, has spoken Israel’s doom, and Amos must proclaim it.<\/p>\n<p>In a dramatic statement, Amos calls on Egypt and Assyria, great centers of oppression and cruelty, to witness Israel’s crimes, as though even they will be amazed at what they see (3:9-10). Only a ragged remnant will survive the punishment to come (3:11-12). Judgment will fall on objects that symbolize Israel’s religious disobedience (3:14) as well as on symbols of the wealth that led Israel away from the Lord (3:15).<\/p>\n<p>Amos uses strong language to denounce luxurious and indolent living bought at the expense of the poor (4:1-3). Rich women whose love for luxuries drives their husbands to squeeze the needy still more are called “fat cows” who will someday be treated like cattle. Then Amos mocks those who worship at Bethel for going through the motions in the wrong spirit (4:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>In the rest of the fourth chapter, Amos recalls incidents from Israel’s history that were meant to call the people back to God: famine, drought, plagues, the destruction of some of their cities. Still they do not repent. “Prepare to meet your God!” warns the prophet, following his warning with a hymn to the mighty power of God (4:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth chapter begins in the form of a funeral dirge, as though Israel were as good as dead already (5:1-2). There is no one to help Israel, whose own armies will be decimated when the disaster strikes (5:3). Of course, God is there to help: “Seek me and live” (5:4-6). The possibility of rescue, of “life,” stands in sharp contrast to the nation’s “death” pictured just before. Idols, as always, are a false hope (5:5). The call to seek the Lord is again followed by a hymn to his power (5:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the hope offered to Israel, Amos has to present a gloomy picture of what he sees (5:10-13). The judicial system is corrupt; taxes and high interest charges (usury) grind down the poor. Those injustices could be corrected if the people would “hate evil and love good” (5:15), but judgment is already on the way (5:16-17).<\/p>\n<p>The people are full of hypocrisy, claiming to look forward to the Day of the Lord. That day will be a day of judgment on their sins, Amos says. Instead of empty gestures of offerings and praise, God wants to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream (5:18-24). Their disobedient spirit goes back to the time of the exodus from Egypt, when God’s own people were attracted to pagan gods. The Lord God of Hosts will send those false gods into captivity with the people who looked to them (5:25-27).<\/p>\n<p>The self-satisfaction felt by the upper classes in Israel had evidently spread to Judah, since Jerusalem as well as Samaria receives some harsh words (6:1). Amos tells those who are lounging in luxury to take a look at three neighboring kingdoms on which judgment has already fallen: Calneh, Hamath, and Gath. Does Israel think it will escape, since they did not? When the Day of Judgment comes, the rich, who have gone “first-class,” will be the first to go (6:2-7). The destruction will leave few survivors, but they will know that punishment came from God (6:8-11). Israel is behaving stupidly to be proud of themselves when they are actually so utterly self-deceived (6:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:10)<\/h5>\n<p>By describing three visions God gave him, Amos then dramatically communicates God’s revelation.<\/p>\n<h6>Israel’s Destruction (7:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>The first vision is in three parts. In the first, Amos pictures the threat of a locust plague in which his prayer of intercession causes God to relent and withdraw the threat (7:1-3). Then he sees an all-consuming fire, and again his prayer averts a catastrophe (7:4-6). In the third part of the vision, Amos sees the Lord standing by a wall and holding a plumb line, implying that he has a standard for his people to live up to, an element missing from the two earlier images. This time, because the people have failed to measure up, the catastrophe cannot be averted (7:7-9).<\/p>\n<h6>Historical Interlude (7:10-17)<\/h6>\n<p>At this point, Amos encounters Amaziah, priest of Bethel, because he has said that the vision of the plumb line means destruction of the idol altars and temples of Israel and of the house of Jeroboam with the sword. Amaziah sends word to Jeroboam that Amos is a traitor and tells Amos to go back to Judah. Amos disclaims any relationship with professional prophets, then specifically includes Amaziah’s family in another prediction of Israel’s disaster.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ripe Fruit (8:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>In the second vision, Amos is shown a basket of ripe (or summer) fruit. The Hebrew word for summer fruit is almost the same as the word for “end,” so the play on words communicates that the nation is “ripe for punishment.” Their ripeness is really moral rottenness. Greedy merchants can hardly wait for religious holidays to end so they can cheat the poor some more by using false weights, selling inferior goods, and foreclosing on debtors. When the captivity comes, their festivities will turn into funerals. A famine, not just of bread and water but of the words of the Lord, is coming upon them, causing even the strongest young people to drop to the ground.<\/p>\n<h6>Destruction of the Temple (9:1-10)<\/h6>\n<p>The third vision is of the Lord destroying the shrine at Bethel when it is thronged with people engaging in their empty worship. The place where they hoped to find security is where they find destruction. Those who are not inside will be destroyed, too, no matter where they try to flee. They won’t be able to hide from God in Sheol or on the heights of Carmel or in the depths of the sea (9:1-4). Another hymn to God’s power follows the vision (9:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The final words of denunciation in the book of Amos are found in 9:7-10, but they are a prelude to a message of hope. Amos shows that Israel is no better than any other nation in the eyes of God. Did he not bring Israel out of Egypt? Yes, but he also brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir. The religious significance of the exodus has been lost because of Israel’s sin, so all but a faithful remnant will be lost.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the remnant was important in the prophetic preaching of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Is 6:12-13; Mi 6:7-9). It recalled God’s promise to maintain the nation of Israel for the sake of the covenant given to the patriarchs (Lv 26:44-45). In Amos’s prophecy, Israel is to be sifted by other nations like grain in a sieve; the ungodly “chaff” will be scattered across the world, but the true “grain” will be preserved.<\/p>\n<h5>Israel’s Hope (9:11-15)<\/h5>\n<p>The expression of hope is expanded in the last section of the book in a series of startling and beautiful metaphors.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of the City of David (9:11-12)<\/h6>\n<p>The first metaphor is of the city (literally “house”) of David, a house fallen into disrepair. The monarchy, which had crumbled from internal decay and external threats, is envisioned as being restored to its former glory. Further, an expansion of the Davidic kingdom will include all nations that belong to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, this passage was quoted by James to support the inclusion of Gentiles in the promise (Acts 15:16-18). The wording in Acts is slightly different from that of Amos because it was based on an early Greek translation of the OT (called the Septuagint). Those called by God’s name or belonging to God include not only geographical entities such as nations but also individuals in any nation who have a close relationship to God. James saw that Amos was predicting inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God, a kingdom far greater than the early monarchy. This prophecy has been fulfilled in part in the Christian church.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of Israel’s Fortunes (9:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>A series of pastoral metaphors closes the book of Amos. They depict the abundance of blessing in the coming kingdom. Israel’s fortunes are to be restored, far beyond the dismal events of the century in which Amos is speaking. Theologians differ in their understanding of the application of this prophecy. If it refers to the present age of the Christian church, it pictures the blessings of the church now as “spiritual Israel.” If it refers to the future, to the millennial reign of Christ, it depicts what will happen on earth at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of a rejuvenated earth is found elsewhere in the Bible (Rom 8:20-22). Micah uses language somewhat similar to that of Amos to describe restoration of what seems to be the literal city of Jerusalem (Mi 3:12–4:4). It may be best to apply the prophetic finale of Amos to the restoration to be effected at the ultimate return of Christ. Whatever the correct application, the remnant must include the followers of Jesus Christ, and the blessings should be seen as intended for all who belong to the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Significance\">Significance<\/p>\n<p>The major purpose of Amos in his prophecies was to denounce Israel’s disobedience to the covenant. Although the covenant promise given to Abraham (Gn 22:15-18) and reiterated throughout the OT is not mentioned explicitly in Amos, it is implicit in the total message of the book. Amos upheld the spiritual nature of the covenant and emphasized that its blessing was mediated through obedience.<\/p>\n<p>Looking around him, Amos saw not only disobedience but hypocrisy. A basic aspect of his ethical teaching was insistence that outward adherence to religious ceremonies without a heart response to the will of God (as expressed in the law) was wrong. The law contained many injunctions that sought to engender love of God and fellow human beings (Ex 23:1-13). In Amos’s time, those social aspects of the law were being willfully disobeyed by the rich, who nevertheless clung to religious ritual. Amos saw what was in their hearts and condemned it. To him, religious obligations not observed in the proper spirit of responsibility to God could actually become sin (4:4). Religion could degenerate to the place where it becomes a curse, a mockery of the will of a holy God.<\/p>\n<p>Amos saw the disobedience and hypocrisy of Israel as culminating in national disaster. Thus his prophecy served as a warning of impending doom to the nation. He saw that other nations besides Israel and Judah were held accountable to God because of their mistreatment of others (1:3–2:3). Their social sins were punished by God in history. Amos thus saw an aspect of the law extending beyond Israel and Judah to other nations. They were responsible to God under what might be called a universal moral law, and they were judged for their crimes against humanity.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic concept of the Day of the Lord, regarded by the people of Amos’s day as a time of vindication for their nation, was seen by Amos as a time of punishment for all sinners. Such punishment would not exclude the nation of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Yet denunciation was not the sole purpose of Amos’s prophetic activity. He proclaimed a future of hope for Israel in the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy, evidently under Messiah, in a time that would be characterized by peace (9:8-15). The relationship of the Davidic kingdom to the messianic kingdom goes back to the promise given to David (2 Sm 7:8-16). Just as those in other nations participated by extension in the demands of the law and in judgment, so would those in other nations who belonged to God participate in the blessings of the promise (9:12).<\/p>\n<p>The concepts of God drawn most sharply in the book of Amos are God’s sovereignty and God’s righteousness. He is sovereign over all the nations of the world, typified by those surrounding Israel, and he brings them to judgment (1:3–2:3). He is also sovereign over nature, as recognized in his control of the universe (4:13; 5:8; 9:13-14). His righteousness demands that he cannot allow his law to continue to be violated without retribution. But his righteousness is also the guarantee of hope for the believing remnant of Israel. It binds him to keep his promise to preserve Israel as a nation (Lv 26:44-45).<\/p>\n<p>Amos held out the possibility of averting the national catastrophe looming on the horizon of world events. However, from his gloomy description of social conditions and of the hardness of people’s hearts at the time, it seems likely that he did not foresee any escape.<\/p>\n<p>His message was presented in bold metaphors and vivid pictures that stick in the mind. That message is still relevant, for many of the sins that characterized the people of the prophet’s day are still prevalent in modern society and in the lives of individuals. Mistreatment of fellow human beings is as much a feature of the 21st century <span>AD<\/span> as it was of the 8th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Today’s reader of the book of Amos should note the prophet’s insistence on the consequences of sin; his emphasis on the responsibility that always accompanies privilege; his presentation of God’s faithfulness; and his message of hope, expressed in part today through the church.<\/p>\n<p>If the book seems to be gloomy in its outlook, it should be remembered that the prophet faced a gloomy picture. He was watching a nation crumble because of its unfaithfulness to God. But beyond the dismal prospect that faced Israel, Amos saw a new kingdom emerging. It was a kingdom of peace in which the people of God would realize the fulfillment of God’s promises. <em>See<\/em> Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AMOS, B<span>ook of<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Significance<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The preacher of the sermons (or oracles) in the book was undoubtedly Amos, a herdsman and a dresser (farmer) of fig trees, from the village of Tekoa, south of Jerusalem. He received from God a vision of judgment on Israel and went north to Bethel, just across the border between Judah and Israel, to deliver his sermons. All we know about the prophet is contained in the superscription (1:1-2) and a biographical section (7:10-14) of the book of Amos, plus what can be learned about him from the style and content of the rest of the book.<\/p>\n<p>Did Amos write down his prophecies himself? Although scholars have raised many questions about the authorship of Amos, there is no convincing reason to regard the book as the work of anyone else. Some have suggested that the sermons were passed on by word of mouth for a long time before they were written down in final form. The Hebrew text, however, is in much better shape than would be expected (had it come through prolonged oral transmission). The many first-person references and vigor of expression imply strongly that Amos himself put much of his prophecy into writing soon after delivering it at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p>Another speculative proposal is that the visions described in the book (7:1-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4) were compiled by Amos before he began his ministry to the northern kingdom, and the oracles (chs 1–6) were composed after that time. The two sections could have been joined into one book much later, during or after the Babylonian exile, with some sections inserted at that time. Other prophecies, however, such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah, contain both oracle and vision sections that scholars have not attempted to divide, and the internal evidence does not make such a division necessary with Amos. Both sections contain similar concerns; in both the visions (7:1-3) and the oracles (5:1-7), Amos appears in the role of intercessor on behalf of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DateOriginandDestination\">Date, Origin, and Destination<\/p>\n<p>According to the superscription, Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah, king of Judah, and Jeroboam II, king of Israel (1:1), or between 792 and 740 <span>BC<\/span>. The content of his message fits what is known about the situation in Israel in that period. It is difficult to be more exact about the beginning and ending of Amos’s prophetic ministry within that time span. The vision came to him “two years before the earthquake” (1:1), but another biblical reference to presumably the same earthquake places it during the days of King Uzziah of Judah (Zec 14:5). Archaeological excavations at Hazor seem to have yielded evidence for an earthquake, which has been dated at approximately 760 <span>BC<\/span>. Amos also contains a prophetic reference to a solar eclipse (8:9); such an eclipse has been calculated to have occurred about 763 <span>BC<\/span>. After King Uzziah was stricken with leprosy, he lived in isolation while Judah was under a co-regency (2 Chr 26:21). Therefore, Amos’s mention of Uzziah as king (1:1) probably sets 760 <span>BC<\/span> as the latest possible date for Amos’s ministry.<\/p>\n<p>The doom that came upon Israel after Amos’s prophecy was the conquest by the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>). Although Amos referred to impending captivity, he never mentioned Assyria as the captor, although he did say that captivity would take Israel to a land east of Damascus (5:27). Probably Amos was not thinking specifically of the rising power of Assyria but only of the inevitable consequences of Israel’s idolatry and hypocrisy. When all the evidence is taken into consideration, it seems reasonable to date the beginning of Amos’s prophecies at Bethel to about 760 <span>BC<\/span>, or approximately the middle of the period during which both Uzziah and Jeroboam II were on their thrones. We do not know how long his ministry lasted; it may have been only a few months.<\/p>\n<p>Amos had been caring for his flocks in the Judean hills south of Jerusalem when God told him, “Go and prophesy to my people in Israel” (7:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). He may have been familiar with the more urban north from earlier trips there to sell wool or fruit, or the pagan worship and social wrongs there may have made a sudden impact on him after his call to prophesy. At any rate, his writings reveal not only his rural Judean background but also a firsthand knowledge of conditions in the northern kingdom of Israel. Although his prophecies were directed primarily to Israel, he also denounced the sin of Judah, predicting that its capital, Jerusalem, would be burned (2:4-5). Several passages are directed at inhabitants of Samaria, capital of Israel (4:1, 11; 6:1), with which Amos was obviously familiar. He could have traveled on to Samaria from Bethel, or he could have learned of its splendors from the boasts of its citizens. He could have addressed them directly as they came from the capital city to worship at Bethel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>The eighth century <span>BC<\/span> was a critical time in Jewish history. Both kingdoms of the divided nation had risen to heights of economic affluence that had not been experienced since the days of Solomon. Yet internal religious decay was sapping the strength of both kingdoms, and their social fabric was being destroyed. A new wealthy class was benefiting from the affluence of the time, growing ever richer while poor people became poorer than ever.<\/p>\n<p>In 803 <span>BC<\/span>, the conquest of Syrian Damascus by the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III had silenced one of Israel’s major enemies. With the Syrians out of the picture, the kingdom of Israel was able to expand its borders under King Joash (2 Kgs 13:25), and for a time even the thrust of Assyrian power westward was diminished. Israel and Judah entered a period of rest from constant warfare and turned their attention to internal affairs.<\/p>\n<p>Joash’s son, Jeroboam II, became king of Israel in 793 and reigned until 753 <span>BC<\/span>. Uzziah was on the throne of Judah from 792 to 740 <span>BC<\/span>. Under these two kings, Judah and Israel controlled a territory that was almost as large as Solomon’s empire had been. Their wealth had grown both from expansion of trade and from the booty of conquered territories.<\/p>\n<p>Archaeology has yielded information about industrial activity within the nations, such as an impressive dyeing industry at Debir. Excavations at Samaria have produced large numbers of ivory inlays that confirm Amos’s description of the wealthy in the capital city (6:4). The city of Samaria was protected by a huge double wall of unusual thickness. A palace, probably Jeroboam’s, dominated the city with a massive tower.<\/p>\n<p>The splendor and prosperity of the time, however, was masking the spread of internal decay. Oppression of the poor by many in the wealthy classes not only threatened the unity of the nation but also meant that God’s laws were being violated. In his denunciations of the cruel treatment of the poor (5:11-13; 8:4-10), Amos warned of the inevitable punishment for disobeying God’s laws.<\/p>\n<p>The nation of Israel was guilty of more than social sins against the covenant. It was also adopting pagan religious practices. Canaanite religious influence intruded into the fabric of the nation of Israel. Excavation of a palace storehouse in Samaria uncovered many <em>ostraca<\/em> (pieces of broken pottery used for writing short messages such as letters, receipts, etc.) containing Hebrew names compounded with “Baal,” a chief god of the Canaanite religion.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the gradual deterioration, false optimism seems to have prevailed. Amos found people desiring the Day of the Lord (5:18) and sought to correct their misunderstanding: the Day of the Lord prophesied in the Scriptures would be a time of judgment on all sinners. A more immediate judgment was to come, however. Assyria began to strengthen its position in the world and to resume its expansionist policies. Under the leadership of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 <span>BC<\/span>), Assyria regained a position of world dominance. Eventually, Israel was attacked by Shalmaneser V of Assyria. Soon afterward, in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, Samaria was occupied. No doubt when the Assyrians were sweeping into Israel, many of the people who had ignored the message of Amos then realized that a prophet of God had been among them.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Superscription (1:1)<\/h5>\n<p>The prophet introduces himself as a shepherd, perhaps implying that it is more than sheep he wants to keep from straying.<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Oracles (1:2–6:14)<\/h5>\n<p>This section begins with a picture of the great power of God, who acts in history to judge the nations (1:2).<\/p>\n<h6>Judgment on Surrounding Nations (1:3–2:3)<\/h6>\n<p>The prophet first speaks against Damascus, then moves on, pronouncing doom on various peoples in ever closer concentric circles, “homing in” on Israel. One may imagine the citizens of Israel applauding God’s judgment on other nations until, with shocking effect, Amos accuses Israel of similar sins.<\/p>\n<p>Damascus was the capital of Syria, northeast of Israel, and the center of Syrian influence. Syria had mistreated Israel during Hazael’s reign in Damascus (842–806 <span>BC<\/span>). Hazael “whittled down” Israel in a number of campaigns (2 Kgs 10:32-33; 13:3-5, 22-24). In their campaign into the territory of Gilead, the Syrians destroyed most of Israel’s army as though they were dust on a threshing floor (2 Kgs 13:7). Hence, Amos denounces Syria for threshing Gilead as grain is threshed with iron rods (Am 1:3). He predicts that Syria will be destroyed and its people deported to Kir, which Amos understood to be their place of origin (9:7). (For the fulfillment of this prophecy, see 2 Kgs 16:9.)<\/p>\n<p>Amos next turned to Gaza, a Philistine city in southwest Palestine. Gaza probably represents the Philistines as a whole, since three other of their five major cities are also mentioned (1:8). The fifth, Gath, had already been conquered by Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17). Amos denounced the Philistines for what must have been a border raid on Israel in which many were carried off into slavery (1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The Phoenician city of Tyre is cited next. Tyre was on the Mediterranean, north of Israel and southwest of Damascus. Destruction of Tyre, like that of the Philistine cities, is predicted as punishment for making slaves of conquered Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Edom is next, south of the Dead Sea. Edom had perennially harassed the Israelites and is referred to in a negative light many times in the OT. Edom is said to have been pitiless toward Israel, his brother (1:11).<\/p>\n<p>Ammon, just to the southeast of Israel, is also judged. The particularly violent incident referred to (1:13) evidently occurred in one of their many attempts to push northward into the Israelite territory of Gilead.<\/p>\n<p>Moab is the last of the surrounding nations to be denounced, with reference to what may have been a well-known incident of desecration of the dead (2:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Oracles against Israel and Judah (2:4-16)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Judah and Israel were at peace at the time, their enmity had continued after dissolution of the united kingdom. Amos accuses Judah of rejecting “the law of the Lord” and predicts the burning of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The oracle against Israel is longer than the others. Amos carefully specifies the social nature of Israel’s sin, making the point that Israel is no better than the surrounding nations. Israel deserves the same punishment. Just as some of the nations were guilty of taking people into slavery, Israel is selling her own poor who cannot repay their debts (2:6). Under Mosaic law it was illegal to keep overnight a garment pledged as security for a loan, since it might be the only source of warmth the debtor had (Ex 22:26-27). Rich people in Israel were attending religious feasts in such clothing “stolen” from the poor (2:8).<\/p>\n<p>Amos reminds Israel of all the good things God has done for them (2:9-11). But because Israel has chosen to continue in disobedience, the nation will not escape impending judgment (2:12-16).<\/p>\n<h6>Denunciation of and Warning against Israel (3:1–6:14)<\/h6>\n<p>Amos substantiates his prophetic authority with a lesson on cause and effect (3:1-8). A lion roars when it has prey, and people fear when a trumpet sounds an alarm. If calamity comes to a city, God has allowed it. God, who reveals his secrets to his prophets, has spoken Israel’s doom, and Amos must proclaim it.<\/p>\n<p>In a dramatic statement, Amos calls on Egypt and Assyria, great centers of oppression and cruelty, to witness Israel’s crimes, as though even they will be amazed at what they see (3:9-10). Only a ragged remnant will survive the punishment to come (3:11-12). Judgment will fall on objects that symbolize Israel’s religious disobedience (3:14) as well as on symbols of the wealth that led Israel away from the Lord (3:15).<\/p>\n<p>Amos uses strong language to denounce luxurious and indolent living bought at the expense of the poor (4:1-3). Rich women whose love for luxuries drives their husbands to squeeze the needy still more are called “fat cows” who will someday be treated like cattle. Then Amos mocks those who worship at Bethel for going through the motions in the wrong spirit (4:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>In the rest of the fourth chapter, Amos recalls incidents from Israel’s history that were meant to call the people back to God: famine, drought, plagues, the destruction of some of their cities. Still they do not repent. “Prepare to meet your God!” warns the prophet, following his warning with a hymn to the mighty power of God (4:6-13).<\/p>\n<p>The fifth chapter begins in the form of a funeral dirge, as though Israel were as good as dead already (5:1-2). There is no one to help Israel, whose own armies will be decimated when the disaster strikes (5:3). Of course, God is there to help: “Seek me and live” (5:4-6). The possibility of rescue, of “life,” stands in sharp contrast to the nation’s “death” pictured just before. Idols, as always, are a false hope (5:5). The call to seek the Lord is again followed by a hymn to his power (5:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>In spite of the hope offered to Israel, Amos has to present a gloomy picture of what he sees (5:10-13). The judicial system is corrupt; taxes and high interest charges (usury) grind down the poor. Those injustices could be corrected if the people would “hate evil and love good” (5:15), but judgment is already on the way (5:16-17).<\/p>\n<p>The people are full of hypocrisy, claiming to look forward to the Day of the Lord. That day will be a day of judgment on their sins, Amos says. Instead of empty gestures of offerings and praise, God wants to let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream (5:18-24). Their disobedient spirit goes back to the time of the exodus from Egypt, when God’s own people were attracted to pagan gods. The Lord God of Hosts will send those false gods into captivity with the people who looked to them (5:25-27).<\/p>\n<p>The self-satisfaction felt by the upper classes in Israel had evidently spread to Judah, since Jerusalem as well as Samaria receives some harsh words (6:1). Amos tells those who are lounging in luxury to take a look at three neighboring kingdoms on which judgment has already fallen: Calneh, Hamath, and Gath. Does Israel think it will escape, since they did not? When the Day of Judgment comes, the rich, who have gone “first-class,” will be the first to go (6:2-7). The destruction will leave few survivors, but they will know that punishment came from God (6:8-11). Israel is behaving stupidly to be proud of themselves when they are actually so utterly self-deceived (6:12-14).<\/p>\n<h5>Prophetic Visions (7:1–9:10)<\/h5>\n<p>By describing three visions God gave him, Amos then dramatically communicates God’s revelation.<\/p>\n<h6>Israel’s Destruction (7:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>The first vision is in three parts. In the first, Amos pictures the threat of a locust plague in which his prayer of intercession causes God to relent and withdraw the threat (7:1-3). Then he sees an all-consuming fire, and again his prayer averts a catastrophe (7:4-6). In the third part of the vision, Amos sees the Lord standing by a wall and holding a plumb line, implying that he has a standard for his people to live up to, an element missing from the two earlier images. This time, because the people have failed to measure up, the catastrophe cannot be averted (7:7-9).<\/p>\n<h6>Historical Interlude (7:10-17)<\/h6>\n<p>At this point, Amos encounters Amaziah, priest of Bethel, because he has said that the vision of the plumb line means destruction of the idol altars and temples of Israel and of the house of Jeroboam with the sword. Amaziah sends word to Jeroboam that Amos is a traitor and tells Amos to go back to Judah. Amos disclaims any relationship with professional prophets, then specifically includes Amaziah’s family in another prediction of Israel’s disaster.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ripe Fruit (8:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>In the second vision, Amos is shown a basket of ripe (or summer) fruit. The Hebrew word for summer fruit is almost the same as the word for “end,” so the play on words communicates that the nation is “ripe for punishment.” Their ripeness is really moral rottenness. Greedy merchants can hardly wait for religious holidays to end so they can cheat the poor some more by using false weights, selling inferior goods, and foreclosing on debtors. When the captivity comes, their festivities will turn into funerals. A famine, not just of bread and water but of the words of the Lord, is coming upon them, causing even the strongest young people to drop to the ground.<\/p>\n<h6>Destruction of the Temple (9:1-10)<\/h6>\n<p>The third vision is of the Lord destroying the shrine at Bethel when it is thronged with people engaging in their empty worship. The place where they hoped to find security is where they find destruction. Those who are not inside will be destroyed, too, no matter where they try to flee. They won’t be able to hide from God in Sheol or on the heights of Carmel or in the depths of the sea (9:1-4). Another hymn to God’s power follows the vision (9:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>The final words of denunciation in the book of Amos are found in 9:7-10, but they are a prelude to a message of hope. Amos shows that Israel is no better than any other nation in the eyes of God. Did he not bring Israel out of Egypt? Yes, but he also brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir. The religious significance of the exodus has been lost because of Israel’s sin, so all but a faithful remnant will be lost.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of the remnant was important in the prophetic preaching of the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Is 6:12-13; Mi 6:7-9). It recalled God’s promise to maintain the nation of Israel for the sake of the covenant given to the patriarchs (Lv 26:44-45). In Amos’s prophecy, Israel is to be sifted by other nations like grain in a sieve; the ungodly “chaff” will be scattered across the world, but the true “grain” will be preserved.<\/p>\n<h5>Israel’s Hope (9:11-15)<\/h5>\n<p>The expression of hope is expanded in the last section of the book in a series of startling and beautiful metaphors.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of the City of David (9:11-12)<\/h6>\n<p>The first metaphor is of the city (literally “house”) of David, a house fallen into disrepair. The monarchy, which had crumbled from internal decay and external threats, is envisioned as being restored to its former glory. Further, an expansion of the Davidic kingdom will include all nations that belong to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, this passage was quoted by James to support the inclusion of Gentiles in the promise (Acts 15:16-18). The wording in Acts is slightly different from that of Amos because it was based on an early Greek translation of the OT (called the Septuagint). Those called by God’s name or belonging to God include not only geographical entities such as nations but also individuals in any nation who have a close relationship to God. James saw that Amos was predicting inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God, a kingdom far greater than the early monarchy. This prophecy has been fulfilled in part in the Christian church.<\/p>\n<h6>Restoration of Israel’s Fortunes (9:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>A series of pastoral metaphors closes the book of Amos. They depict the abundance of blessing in the coming kingdom. Israel’s fortunes are to be restored, far beyond the dismal events of the century in which Amos is speaking. Theologians differ in their understanding of the application of this prophecy. If it refers to the present age of the Christian church, it pictures the blessings of the church now as “spiritual Israel.” If it refers to the future, to the millennial reign of Christ, it depicts what will happen on earth at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The concept of a rejuvenated earth is found elsewhere in the Bible (Rom 8:20-22). Micah uses language somewhat similar to that of Amos to describe restoration of what seems to be the literal city of Jerusalem (Mi 3:12–4:4). It may be best to apply the prophetic finale of Amos to the restoration to be effected at the ultimate return of Christ. Whatever the correct application, the remnant must include the followers of Jesus Christ, and the blessings should be seen as intended for all who belong to the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Significance\">Significance<\/p>\n<p>The major purpose of Amos in his prophecies was to denounce Israel’s disobedience to the covenant. Although the covenant promise given to Abraham (Gn 22:15-18) and reiterated throughout the OT is not mentioned explicitly in Amos, it is implicit in the total message of the book. Amos upheld the spiritual nature of the covenant and emphasized that its blessing was mediated through obedience.<\/p>\n<p>Looking around him, Amos saw not only disobedience but hypocrisy. A basic aspect of his ethical teaching was insistence that outward adherence to religious ceremonies without a heart response to the will of God (as expressed in the law) was wrong. The law contained many injunctions that sought to engender love of God and fellow human beings (Ex 23:1-13). In Amos’s time, those social aspects of the law were being willfully disobeyed by the rich, who nevertheless clung to religious ritual. Amos saw what was in their hearts and condemned it. To him, religious obligations not observed in the proper spirit of responsibility to God could actually become sin (4:4). Religion could degenerate to the place where it becomes a curse, a mockery of the will of a holy God.<\/p>\n<p>Amos saw the disobedience and hypocrisy of Israel as culminating in national disaster. Thus his prophecy served as a warning of impending doom to the nation. He saw that other nations besides Israel and Judah were held accountable to God because of their mistreatment of others (1:3–2:3). Their social sins were punished by God in history. Amos thus saw an aspect of the law extending beyond Israel and Judah to other nations. They were responsible to God under what might be called a universal moral law, and they were judged for their crimes against humanity.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic concept of the Day of the Lord, regarded by the people of Amos’s day as a time of vindication for their nation, was seen by Amos as a time of punishment for all sinners. Such punishment would not exclude the nation of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Yet denunciation was not the sole purpose of Amos’s prophetic activity. He proclaimed a future of hope for Israel in the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy, evidently under Messiah, in a time that would be characterized by peace (9:8-15). The relationship of the Davidic kingdom to the messianic kingdom goes back to the promise given to David (2 Sm 7:8-16). Just as those in other nations participated by extension in the demands of the law and in judgment, so would those in other nations who belonged to God participate in the blessings of the promise (9:12).<\/p>\n<p>The concepts of God drawn most sharply in the book of Amos are God’s sovereignty and God’s righteousness. He is sovereign over all the nations of the world, typified by those surrounding Israel, and he brings them to judgment (1:3–2:3). He is also sovereign over nature, as recognized in his control of the universe (4:13; 5:8; 9:13-14). His righteousness demands that he cannot allow his law to continue to be violated without retribution. But his righteousness is also the guarantee of hope for the believing remnant of Israel. It binds him to keep his promise to preserve Israel as a nation (Lv 26:44-45).<\/p>\n<p>Amos held out the possibility of averting the national catastrophe looming on the horizon of world events. However, from his gloomy description of social conditions and of the hardness of people’s hearts at the time, it seems likely that he did not foresee any escape.<\/p>\n<p>His message was presented in bold metaphors and vivid pictures that stick in the mind. That message is still relevant, for many of the sins that characterized the people of the prophet’s day are still prevalent in modern society and in the lives of individuals. Mistreatment of fellow human beings is as much a feature of the 21st century <span>AD<\/span> as it was of the 8th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Today’s reader of the book of Amos should note the prophet’s insistence on the consequences of sin; his emphasis on the responsibility that always accompanies privilege; his presentation of God’s faithfulness; and his message of hope, expressed in part today through the church.<\/p>\n<p>If the book seems to be gloomy in its outlook, it should be remembered that the prophet faced a gloomy picture. He was watching a nation crumble because of its unfaithfulness to God. But beyond the dismal prospect that faced Israel, Amos saw a new kingdom emerging. It was a kingdom of peace in which the people of God would realize the fulfillment of God’s promises. <em>See<\/em> Prophecy; Prophet, Prophetess; Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"AMOS, Book of Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth...","summary_en":"AMOS, Book of Writings of the prophet Amos, one of the 12 minor prophets of the Hebrew OT. The book of Amos is called minor only because it is relatively short. Its message is as important as that of any of the major prophets. Indeed, Amos has one of the most powerful statements in the Bible of God’s judgment against injustice, oppression, and hypocrisy. The book consists primarily of prophetic sermons preached by Amos at Bethel, royal sanctuary of the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8465,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Damascus","title_en":"Damascus","content_ro":"<h3>DAMASCUS<\/h3>\n<p>Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Cool” (biblical Abana), which runs from the northwest mountains through a deep ravine to the city; and the Nahr el-A waj, “the Crooked” (biblical Pharpar), which flows west to east. Together the two rivers irrigate 400 square miles (643.6 square kilometers) of land. Their beauty and importance in biblical times is conveyed by the haughty words of Naaman, a resident of the area, who almost refused to wash his leprosy away in the Jordan, as Elisha had prescribed, because it was such a poor river in comparison with the Abana and Pharpar (2 Kgs 5).<\/p>\n\n<p>Of the several trade routes that converged in the area, one led to Tyre and down the Mediterranean coastline, another to Megiddo and eventually to Memphis and Egypt, and a third to the Gulf of Aqaba.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical mention of Damascus (Gn 14:15) refers to the city in connection with Abraham’s successful attack upon the confederation of kings who kidnapped Lot and his family. The Bible does not refer to the city again until the time of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Israel occupied a strategic position along the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although in the time of Joshua and the judges Israel was in conflict with its immediate neighbors, the Amorites, Moabites, Philistines, Ammonites, and Midianites, there was relatively little opposition from Syria.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, Zobah, an Aramean kingdom to the north of Damascus, was menacing the Israelites. Damascus was possibly in alliance with Zobah at this time, and the Israelites fought a defensive action (1 Sm 14:47). David subsequently defeated Hadadezer of Zobah and gained control over southern Syria and Damascus, where he garrisoned his troops. David’s forces under Joab continued to be successful, and tribute was sent from Damascus to Israel. One of Hadadezer’s officers, Rezon, deserted and formed a guerilla band in the Damascus area. Subsequently, in Solomon’s reign he eroded even the Israelites’ economic control of the region and set himself up as king in Damascus around 940 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 11:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>In the reign of Ben-hadad I, about 883–843 <span>BC<\/span>, soldiers from Damascus besieged Samaria and sent reasonable terms to Ahab, which were accepted swiftly. Damascus was at the height of its power when Ben-hadad was campaigning successfully against the Assyrians. At this time, when Jehoram, Ahab’s son, was king of Israel, Naaman the leper, a Syrian captain, was healed by the prophet Elisha when he accepted humbly the prescribed cure.<\/p>\n<p>The strategy of overcoming the kingdom by killing the king had been successful for Ben-hadad in his fight with Ahab, and he continued to follow the same policy. Shortly afterward, in a further effort to subdue Samaria, he sent assassination squads to murder either Jehoram or the prophet Elisha. The Lord preserved the lives of the pursued, and the Syrian attacked without success. Several years later, Elisha, who had gained the respect of the Syrians, entered Damascus boldly and announced that Ben-hadad’s illness was not fatal but that his death was imminent. Ben-hadad was thereafter murdered by Hazael, who then succeeded him. Although Damascus was soundly defeated by Assyria about 838 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael rebounded quickly, and by 830 <span>BC<\/span> other predictions of Elisha were fulfilled. Damascene troops then controlled large areas of Palestinian territory, and the temple treasure was used to bribe the Syrians and save Jerusalem (2 Kgs 12:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Planning to continue the subjection of Israel, Ben-hadad II found himself having to contend instead with resumed attacks from Assyria. In 803 <span>BC<\/span> Damascus became a tributary of Assyria, but the northern forces were unable to hold the area. After a further campaign in which Assyria again proved dominant, a weakened Damascus was unable to quash an Israelite rebellion in 795 <span>BC<\/span>. By the time of Jeroboam II, the Damascenes were forced to pay tribute to Samaria (2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>About 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Syrians, led by their new leader Rezin, joined forces with Pekah, king of Israel, to subjugate Judah. Much land was captured, although their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5-6; 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the city’s doom was predicted by Isaiah (Is 8:4; 17:1), Amos (Am 1:3-5), and Jeremiah (Jer 49:23-27). Rejecting God, Ahaz of Judah turned for protection to an alliance with the Assyrians, whom he bribed with the temple treasure. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (“Pul”) agreed and marched against the Syro-Israelite confederation. After defeating Israel, he attacked Damascus, plundered the city, deported the population, and replaced them with foreigners from other captured lands. Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>Due to its key location, Damascus remained important, and the Assyrians used the city as a provincial capital. Their records mention it in 727, 720, and 694 <span>BC<\/span>, and also in the days of Ashurbanipal (669–663 <span>BC<\/span>). Assyrian world dominance succumbed to that of Neo-Babylon, which was later replaced by that of Medo-Persia. During the period of Persian control, Damascus was a noted administrative center. Under the regime of Alexander the Great, the importance of Damascus was diminished by the rise in commercial significance of Antioch.<\/p>\n<p>During intertestamental times, Damascus passed from one ruler to another. Following the death of Alexander, the city was controlled by the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Babylon. Somewhat before 100 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was divided, with Damascus becoming the capital of Coele-Syria. Its non-Syrian kings were constantly in trouble at home with the economy and abroad with the Parthians, Hasmoneans, and Nabateans, who under Aretas controlled Damascus from 84 to 72 <span>BC<\/span>. Subsequently, authority passed to the Hasmoneans, descendants of the Maccabees, and then the Idumeans (the Herods). The area was subjected to Roman dominance after the defeat of Syria by the Romans in 65 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after the death of Christ, the Nabateans regained control of the area, ruling Damascus from Petra through an ethnarch. It was under the control of an Arab appointee, probably Aretas IV, when Saul of Tarsus sought Jewish authority to purge Damascus of its Christians (2 Cor 11:32). Luke’s report in Acts 9, corroborated by Paul’s own confession (Acts 22:5-21; 26:11-23), relates Saul’s vision, blinding, and subsequent conversion on the road to Damascus. This may have been close to the place where Syrian soldiers were blinded when planning to assassinate Elisha (2 Kgs 6:18-23). After Saul’s sight was restored in a house on the street called “Straight,” he preached Christianity. Apparently the uproar in the Jewish quarter concerning his preaching was so great that the ethnarch was willing to condone Saul’s murder by orthodox Jews. Acts 9:23-25 describes his escape to Jerusalem. Damascus is not mentioned thereafter in biblical history.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Syria, Syrians.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAMASCUS<\/h3>\n<p>Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Cool” (biblical Abana), which runs from the northwest mountains through a deep ravine to the city; and the Nahr el-A waj, “the Crooked” (biblical Pharpar), which flows west to east. Together the two rivers irrigate 400 square miles (643.6 square kilometers) of land. Their beauty and importance in biblical times is conveyed by the haughty words of Naaman, a resident of the area, who almost refused to wash his leprosy away in the Jordan, as Elisha had prescribed, because it was such a poor river in comparison with the Abana and Pharpar (2 Kgs 5).<\/p>\n\n<p>Of the several trade routes that converged in the area, one led to Tyre and down the Mediterranean coastline, another to Megiddo and eventually to Memphis and Egypt, and a third to the Gulf of Aqaba.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical mention of Damascus (Gn 14:15) refers to the city in connection with Abraham’s successful attack upon the confederation of kings who kidnapped Lot and his family. The Bible does not refer to the city again until the time of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Israel occupied a strategic position along the trade routes between Mesopotamia and Egypt. Although in the time of Joshua and the judges Israel was in conflict with its immediate neighbors, the Amorites, Moabites, Philistines, Ammonites, and Midianites, there was relatively little opposition from Syria.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, Zobah, an Aramean kingdom to the north of Damascus, was menacing the Israelites. Damascus was possibly in alliance with Zobah at this time, and the Israelites fought a defensive action (1 Sm 14:47). David subsequently defeated Hadadezer of Zobah and gained control over southern Syria and Damascus, where he garrisoned his troops. David’s forces under Joab continued to be successful, and tribute was sent from Damascus to Israel. One of Hadadezer’s officers, Rezon, deserted and formed a guerilla band in the Damascus area. Subsequently, in Solomon’s reign he eroded even the Israelites’ economic control of the region and set himself up as king in Damascus around 940 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 11:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>In the reign of Ben-hadad I, about 883–843 <span>BC<\/span>, soldiers from Damascus besieged Samaria and sent reasonable terms to Ahab, which were accepted swiftly. Damascus was at the height of its power when Ben-hadad was campaigning successfully against the Assyrians. At this time, when Jehoram, Ahab’s son, was king of Israel, Naaman the leper, a Syrian captain, was healed by the prophet Elisha when he accepted humbly the prescribed cure.<\/p>\n<p>The strategy of overcoming the kingdom by killing the king had been successful for Ben-hadad in his fight with Ahab, and he continued to follow the same policy. Shortly afterward, in a further effort to subdue Samaria, he sent assassination squads to murder either Jehoram or the prophet Elisha. The Lord preserved the lives of the pursued, and the Syrian attacked without success. Several years later, Elisha, who had gained the respect of the Syrians, entered Damascus boldly and announced that Ben-hadad’s illness was not fatal but that his death was imminent. Ben-hadad was thereafter murdered by Hazael, who then succeeded him. Although Damascus was soundly defeated by Assyria about 838 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael rebounded quickly, and by 830 <span>BC<\/span> other predictions of Elisha were fulfilled. Damascene troops then controlled large areas of Palestinian territory, and the temple treasure was used to bribe the Syrians and save Jerusalem (2 Kgs 12:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Planning to continue the subjection of Israel, Ben-hadad II found himself having to contend instead with resumed attacks from Assyria. In 803 <span>BC<\/span> Damascus became a tributary of Assyria, but the northern forces were unable to hold the area. After a further campaign in which Assyria again proved dominant, a weakened Damascus was unable to quash an Israelite rebellion in 795 <span>BC<\/span>. By the time of Jeroboam II, the Damascenes were forced to pay tribute to Samaria (2 Kgs 14:28).<\/p>\n<p>About 738 <span>BC<\/span> the Syrians, led by their new leader Rezin, joined forces with Pekah, king of Israel, to subjugate Judah. Much land was captured, although their siege of Jerusalem was unsuccessful (2 Kgs 16:5-6; 2 Chr 28:5). At this time of seeming success for Damascus, the city’s doom was predicted by Isaiah (Is 8:4; 17:1), Amos (Am 1:3-5), and Jeremiah (Jer 49:23-27). Rejecting God, Ahaz of Judah turned for protection to an alliance with the Assyrians, whom he bribed with the temple treasure. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (“Pul”) agreed and marched against the Syro-Israelite confederation. After defeating Israel, he attacked Damascus, plundered the city, deported the population, and replaced them with foreigners from other captured lands. Damascus was no longer an independent city-state.<\/p>\n<p>Due to its key location, Damascus remained important, and the Assyrians used the city as a provincial capital. Their records mention it in 727, 720, and 694 <span>BC<\/span>, and also in the days of Ashurbanipal (669–663 <span>BC<\/span>). Assyrian world dominance succumbed to that of Neo-Babylon, which was later replaced by that of Medo-Persia. During the period of Persian control, Damascus was a noted administrative center. Under the regime of Alexander the Great, the importance of Damascus was diminished by the rise in commercial significance of Antioch.<\/p>\n<p>During intertestamental times, Damascus passed from one ruler to another. Following the death of Alexander, the city was controlled by the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Babylon. Somewhat before 100 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was divided, with Damascus becoming the capital of Coele-Syria. Its non-Syrian kings were constantly in trouble at home with the economy and abroad with the Parthians, Hasmoneans, and Nabateans, who under Aretas controlled Damascus from 84 to 72 <span>BC<\/span>. Subsequently, authority passed to the Hasmoneans, descendants of the Maccabees, and then the Idumeans (the Herods). The area was subjected to Roman dominance after the defeat of Syria by the Romans in 65 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after the death of Christ, the Nabateans regained control of the area, ruling Damascus from Petra through an ethnarch. It was under the control of an Arab appointee, probably Aretas IV, when Saul of Tarsus sought Jewish authority to purge Damascus of its Christians (2 Cor 11:32). Luke’s report in Acts 9, corroborated by Paul’s own confession (Acts 22:5-21; 26:11-23), relates Saul’s vision, blinding, and subsequent conversion on the road to Damascus. This may have been close to the place where Syrian soldiers were blinded when planning to assassinate Elisha (2 Kgs 6:18-23). After Saul’s sight was restored in a house on the street called “Straight,” he preached Christianity. Apparently the uproar in the Jewish quarter concerning his preaching was so great that the ethnarch was willing to condone Saul’s murder by orthodox Jews. Acts 9:23-25 describes his escape to Jerusalem. Damascus is not mentioned thereafter in biblical history.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Syria, Syrians.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAMASCUS Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Co...","summary_en":"DAMASCUS Syrian oasis city protected on three sides by mountains and situated on trade routes about 160 miles (257 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. The name Damascus can also refer to the surrounding area and to the southern Syrian state. Though close to the desert, the district is rich in almonds, apricots, cotton, flax, grains, hemp, olives, pistachios, pomegranates, tobacco, vineyards, and walnuts. These crops grow well because the land is watered by two rivers: the Nahr Barada, “the Co...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13251,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gath","title_en":"Gath","content_ro":"<h3>GATH<\/h3>\n<p>Walled city (2 Chr 26:6) and one of the five chief cities of the Philistines, which also included Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron (Jos 13:3; 1 Sm 6:17), all situated on or near the southern coast of Palestine. Although frequently involved in conflict with the Israelites, the city was apparently not subdued until David’s time (1 Chr 18:1). It was a Canaanite city, the home of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:4) and other men of great height (2 Sm 21:18-22). A remnant of the Anakim was left, even after the extensive campaigns of Joshua (Jos 10:36-39; 11:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>When the Philistines captured the ark of God, they carried it from Ebenezer to Ashdod, from there to Gath (1 Sm 5:8), and then to Ekron. After many of the Philistines died or were stricken with tumors, the ark was returned to Israel, first to Beth-shemesh and then to Kiriath-jearim (6:14; 7:1). When David fled from Saul, he came to Gath and feigned madness before Achish, the king of the city (21:10-15). During the rebellion of Absalom, 600 Gittites served among David’s mercenaries (2 Sm 15:18). According to 2 Chronicles 11:8, Rehoboam fortified the city of Gath, and 2 Kings 12:17 relates that it was taken by Hazael, king of Syria, in the ninth century. But it was apparently again in Philistine control when Uzziah broke down its walls (2 Chr 26:6). The city disappeared after being besieged and conquered by Sargon II in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> (Am 6:2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Philistia, Philistines.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GATH<\/h3>\n<p>Walled city (2 Chr 26:6) and one of the five chief cities of the Philistines, which also included Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron (Jos 13:3; 1 Sm 6:17), all situated on or near the southern coast of Palestine. Although frequently involved in conflict with the Israelites, the city was apparently not subdued until David’s time (1 Chr 18:1). It was a Canaanite city, the home of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:4) and other men of great height (2 Sm 21:18-22). A remnant of the Anakim was left, even after the extensive campaigns of Joshua (Jos 10:36-39; 11:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>When the Philistines captured the ark of God, they carried it from Ebenezer to Ashdod, from there to Gath (1 Sm 5:8), and then to Ekron. After many of the Philistines died or were stricken with tumors, the ark was returned to Israel, first to Beth-shemesh and then to Kiriath-jearim (6:14; 7:1). When David fled from Saul, he came to Gath and feigned madness before Achish, the king of the city (21:10-15). During the rebellion of Absalom, 600 Gittites served among David’s mercenaries (2 Sm 15:18). According to 2 Chronicles 11:8, Rehoboam fortified the city of Gath, and 2 Kings 12:17 relates that it was taken by Hazael, king of Syria, in the ninth century. But it was apparently again in Philistine control when Uzziah broke down its walls (2 Chr 26:6). The city disappeared after being besieged and conquered by Sargon II in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> (Am 6:2).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Philistia, Philistines.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GATH Walled city (2 Chr 26:6) and one of the five chief cities of the Philistines, which also included Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron (Jos 13:3; 1 Sm 6:17), all situated on or near the southern coast of Palestine. Although frequently involved in conflict with the Israelites, the city was apparently not subdued until David’s time (1 Chr 18:1). It was a Canaanite city, the home of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:4) and other men of great height (2 Sm 21:18-22). A remnant of the Anakim was left, e...","summary_en":"GATH Walled city (2 Chr 26:6) and one of the five chief cities of the Philistines, which also included Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron (Jos 13:3; 1 Sm 6:17), all situated on or near the southern coast of Palestine. Although frequently involved in conflict with the Israelites, the city was apparently not subdued until David’s time (1 Chr 18:1). It was a Canaanite city, the home of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:4) and other men of great height (2 Sm 21:18-22). A remnant of the Anakim was left, e...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15503,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hazael","title_en":"Hazael","content_ro":"<h3>HAZAEL<\/h3>\n<p>King of Syria (843?–796? <span>BC<\/span>) who came to power by assassinating his ruler, Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 8:7-15), and establishing a new dynasty. An inscription of Shalmaneser speaks of Hazael as a “son of a nobody,” and mentions that he had “seized the throne.” The Hebrew prophet Elijah was told to anoint Hazael as the next king of Syria (1 Kgs 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>Upon becoming king, Hazael continued the policy of Ben-hadad in resisting the Assyrian military influence in Palestine. Although most of Palestine came under Assyrian control in 841 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael was able to retain independence by withstanding the siege of Damascus. Failing in a final attempt to subdue Damascus in 837 <span>BC<\/span>, the Assyrians withdrew. This allowed Hazael the freedom to begin a series of attacks against Israel that resulted in Syrian domination of most of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Toward the end of Jehu’s reign in Israel, Hazael occupied Israelite territory in the hills of Galilee and east of the Jordan (2 Kgs 10:32). After Jehu’s death, the Syrian king continually harassed Israel, captured much of Philistia, and spared Jerusalem only because Joash, king of Judah, asked for peace and was willing to pay heavy tribute (12:17-18). The Syrian oppression continued during the reign of Hazael’s son until Adad-nirari III, king of Assyria, marched into Syria, causing Damascus to submit and pay heavy tribute. This took the pressure off Israel and provided opportunity for her to regain territory taken by Hazael (13:24-25).<\/p>\n<p>Archaeologists found the remains of a bed at Arslan Tash (Hadathah) that may have been included in the tribute taken from Damascus. Part of the inscription on a piece of ivory inlay from the bed reads “to our Lord Hazael.” Evidently there was a high level of culture in Damascus under Hazael. According to Josephus, Hazael was long remembered for his part in building temples in Damascus.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Syria, Syrians.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HAZAEL<\/h3>\n<p>King of Syria (843?–796? <span>BC<\/span>) who came to power by assassinating his ruler, Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 8:7-15), and establishing a new dynasty. An inscription of Shalmaneser speaks of Hazael as a “son of a nobody,” and mentions that he had “seized the throne.” The Hebrew prophet Elijah was told to anoint Hazael as the next king of Syria (1 Kgs 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>Upon becoming king, Hazael continued the policy of Ben-hadad in resisting the Assyrian military influence in Palestine. Although most of Palestine came under Assyrian control in 841 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael was able to retain independence by withstanding the siege of Damascus. Failing in a final attempt to subdue Damascus in 837 <span>BC<\/span>, the Assyrians withdrew. This allowed Hazael the freedom to begin a series of attacks against Israel that resulted in Syrian domination of most of Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>Toward the end of Jehu’s reign in Israel, Hazael occupied Israelite territory in the hills of Galilee and east of the Jordan (2 Kgs 10:32). After Jehu’s death, the Syrian king continually harassed Israel, captured much of Philistia, and spared Jerusalem only because Joash, king of Judah, asked for peace and was willing to pay heavy tribute (12:17-18). The Syrian oppression continued during the reign of Hazael’s son until Adad-nirari III, king of Assyria, marched into Syria, causing Damascus to submit and pay heavy tribute. This took the pressure off Israel and provided opportunity for her to regain territory taken by Hazael (13:24-25).<\/p>\n<p>Archaeologists found the remains of a bed at Arslan Tash (Hadathah) that may have been included in the tribute taken from Damascus. Part of the inscription on a piece of ivory inlay from the bed reads “to our Lord Hazael.” Evidently there was a high level of culture in Damascus under Hazael. According to Josephus, Hazael was long remembered for his part in building temples in Damascus.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Syria, Syrians.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HAZAEL King of Syria (843?–796? BC) who came to power by assassinating his ruler, Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 8:7-15), and establishing a new dynasty. An inscription of Shalmaneser speaks of Hazael as a “son of a nobody,” and mentions that he had “seized the throne.” The Hebrew prophet Elijah was told to anoint Hazael as the next king of Syria (1 Kgs 19:15). Upon becoming king, Hazael continued the policy of Ben-hadad in resisting the Assyrian military influence in Palestine. Although most of Palestine ...","summary_en":"HAZAEL King of Syria (843?–796? BC) who came to power by assassinating his ruler, Ben-hadad (2 Kgs 8:7-15), and establishing a new dynasty. An inscription of Shalmaneser speaks of Hazael as a “son of a nobody,” and mentions that he had “seized the throne.” The Hebrew prophet Elijah was told to anoint Hazael as the next king of Syria (1 Kgs 19:15). Upon becoming king, Hazael continued the policy of Ben-hadad in resisting the Assyrian military influence in Palestine. Although most of Palestine ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18698,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehoash","title_en":"Jehoash","content_ro":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","summary_en":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36996,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47339,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","summary_en":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74965,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","summary_en":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102591,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","summary_en":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130217,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:17","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:17<\/strong> <em>Hazael<\/em><em>,<\/em> a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 <span>BC<\/span> and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 <span>BC<\/span>) launched a series of campaigns in 805 <span>BC<\/span>, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 <span>BC<\/span>. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether <em>Gath<\/em> is the well-known city of the Philistines (1 Sam 5:8; 6:17) or a Hebrew city otherwise known as Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3; Neh 11:33) is disputed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","summary_en":"12:17 Hazael, a perennial oppressor of God’s people (8:28; 9:14-15; 10:32-33; 13:3), had assassinated the Aramean king Ben-hadad II and seized the throne (8:15). Hazael’s campaign against Israel and Judah probably came after the death of the Assyrian king Shamshi-adad V in 811 BC and before Adad-nirari III (810–783 BC) launched a series of campaigns in 805 BC, leading to the capture of Damascus in 802 BC. Free of Assyria’s heavy hand, Hazael could launch a campaign southward. • Whether Gath i...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":13151,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Galilee","title_en":"Galilee","content_ro":"<h3>GALILEE<\/h3>\n<p>Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in the hill country of Naphtali (Jos 20:7; cf. 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76).<\/p>\n<p>Galilee originally designated the area occupied by the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun (Is 9:1), and possibly Asher (if Cabul in Jos 19:27 is the same city as in 1 Kgs 9:11-13). None of those tribes was able to completely expel the original Canaanite inhabitants (Jgs 1:30-33; 2:1-4), and as a result, Galilee tended to be racially mixed. The cities that King Solomon gave to Hiram, gentile king of Tyre, were within Galilee (1 Kgs 9:11), and the gentile intermixture in that area may have influenced Solomon’s choice of those cities for a gift. This racially mixed condition is also the probable basis for the designation in Isaiah 9:1, “Galilee of the nations” (cf. Mt 4:15; 1 Macc 5:15).<\/p>\n<p>During the monarchy, Galilee was a buffer zone between Israel and Syria, and it bore the brunt of Syrian invasions against Israel. This fact is cited by the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:1), but he saw it as the prelude to a brighter day when the messianic king would reign. Galilee was conquered by Syrian King Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:20) and was probably recovered by Israel’s King Ahab. Galilee was later subjugated by the Arameans under Hazael (2 Kgs 10:32; 12:18; 13:22) and regained by Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:23-25). As a result of Assyrian conquests in the area of Damascus and Galilee in 732 <span>BC<\/span> by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29), more Gentiles were imported into the area while many of the Jewish inhabitants were deported. This naturally led to greater gentile influence and domination in Galilee. Under the successive influence of Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Syria, Galilee was constantly experiencing infiltration and migration. From the time of the Assyrian conquest of Israel to about the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, Galilee’s population was dominated by Gentiles, with only a few Jews.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews remaining in Galilee were brought to Judea by Simon Maccabeus in 164 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Macc 5:21-23). Galilee was conquered by Aristobulus I (104–103 <span>BC<\/span>), who forced the inhabitants to be circumcised and to submit to Jewish laws, a work that probably already had been initiated by John Hyrcanus (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Herod the Great (ruler under Rome, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) affixed Galilee to his kingdom, and more Jews were attracted there. Josephus recorded that Galilee had 240 cities and villages and 100,000 men available to fight against the Romans. After the death of Herod the Great, Galilee was included in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39). With the banishment of Herod Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 39, Galilee was added to the territory of Herod Agrippa I, who ruled it until he died in <span>AD<\/span> 44. Rome directly administered Galilee until it was put under the rule of Herod Agrippa II. By siding with the Romans during the Jewish revolts, he was able to retain his position until <span>AD<\/span> 100. In spite of the Galileans’ attempt to gain independence, the revolutionary faction was brought under subjection by Vespasian in <span>AD<\/span> 67. After Herod Agrippa II’s death, Galilee became part of the Roman province of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sanhedrin and many other Jews of southern Palestine flocked to Galilee. As a result, such cities as Tiberias and Sepphoris became Jewish, and the dispersed Jews came to think of Galilee as their center. Tiberias became a center for Jewish learning, and it was there that such major contributions as the Tiberian system of vowel pointing the Hebrew consonantal text were made, as well as the formulation of the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud.<\/p>\n<p>From about <span>AD<\/span> 451 until the Muslim rule over Galilee began in the seventh century, Galilee was governed by the Christian patriarchate of Jerusalem, set up by the Council of Chalcedon in <span>AD<\/span> 451. Muslim rule from the seventh century on was continuous except for the intervals caused by the twelfth-century Crusades and World War I. All of Galilee has been included in the modern state of Israel since its establishment in 1948.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Boundaries\">Boundaries<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was bounded on the east by the upper Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee and on the south by the plain of Esdraelon, which served as a natural boundary between Galilee and Samaria. At times the plain was included in Galilee, as it was during the intertestamental period (1 Macc 10:30; 12:47-49). While the northern boundary was uncertain and variable during Galilee’s history, in NT times it reached to Lake Huleh. The western boundary followed the Mediterranean Sea to Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>From the time of the divided kingdom until the Assyrian conquest of Galilee (734 <span>BC<\/span>), it was the northernmost part of the kingdom of Israel. The area was divided into upper Galilee and lower Galilee by the plain of Ramah, which ran between Capernaum and Ptolemais (cf. Jdt 1:8; 1 Macc 12:49; Josephus’s <em>War<\/em> 3.3.1). In the Mishnah (compilation of early rabbinical interpretation of the Law), Galilee is divided into three parts corresponding to the natural divisions of plain, hill country, and mountain. Under Roman rule, Galilee was about 25 to 30 miles (40 to 50 kilometers) from east to west and about 35 to 40 miles (55 to 65 kilometers) from north to south.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>The attractive Galilean landscape is made up of volcanic limestone hills and fertile alluvial plains. Its climate is cooler than that of any other part of Palestine, and its beauty and fertility contrast sharply with the barren, sun-baked hills of southern Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The physical features range from the high mountains in the north to the plain of Esdraelon in the south. Mt Tabor is prominent on the east, while Mt Carmel stands out on the west. Much of upper Galilee is 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above sea level, and in NT times it was largely forested and less densely inhabited than lower Galilee. Lower Galilee starts at 1,500 to 2,000 feet (450 to 600 meters) above sea level and descends sharply to the Sea of Galilee, more than 600 feet (182.9 meters) below sea level.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the average annual rainfall of 25 inches (63.5 centimeters), Galilee is watered by the streams that flow from springs in the hills and are the main sources of the beautiful Kishon River at Janin, and the headwaters of the Jordan River, the largest river in Palestine. The ground is also moistened by heavy dews resulting from climatic conditions created by the Lebanon mountain range to the north.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cities\">Cities<\/p>\n<p>Among the more notable cities in Galilee’s early history were Kedesh in Naphtali, a city of refuge (Jos 20:7; 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76), and Hazor, about 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee (Jos 11:10; 1 Kgs 9:15). During the time of Christ, Chorazin (Mt 11:21) and Capernaum (4:13; 11:23) were prominent cities located in the northeast near the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum seems to have been a center for Jesus’ ministry in the area (Mt 4:13; Mk 2:1; 9:33; etc.). Nazareth is especially significant as the city of Christ’s childhood (Mt 2:22-23; Lk 2:39; 4:16; etc.). Nain (Lk 7:11-17), located on the northern edge of the mountain now called Little Hermon, and Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-11) also figured prominently in Christ’s ministry. Sepphoris and Tiberias were important cities during Roman administration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RoadsandTravel\">Roads and Travel<\/p>\n<p>Many roads traversed Galilee, and those in NT times were superior due to Roman construction and maintenance.<\/p>\n<p>Among the best-known trade routes was the Via Maris (the Way of the Sea), which ran through Galilee on its way from Damascus to Egypt. Another main road ran from Tiberias, near the Sea of Galilee, to Acco (Ptolemais), a port on the Phoenician coast. Major caravan routes also connected Galilee with the markets of the East. The area was tied together by a network of spurs and connecting roads that branched from the main highways.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inhabitants\">Inhabitants<\/p>\n<p>The occupants of Galilee (Galileans) were basically Jewish in religious and patriotic orientation, but they were composed of various ethnic elements. The influence of this mixture was sufficient to cause recognizable differences in speech from that of southern Palestine (cf. Mt 26:69, 73). The Galileans absorbed more Greek and Roman influences than did the Judean Jews. The racial mixture, differences in speech, and location caused Judean Jews to view Galilee and its inhabitants with contempt (Jn 1:46; 7:41, 52).<\/p>\n<p>Lower Galilee was densely settled with villages, and in NT times the population was probably about three million. The fertility of the soil and resultant fruitfulness of the country produced a prosperous Jewish populace, particularly in the centuries immediately after the time of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Government\">Government<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was under the Roman rule of emperors Augustus and Tiberius during the time of Christ. Roman fortifications throughout Galilee were a constant reminder of the presence and influence of the Roman Empire. During Christ’s ministry, Rome installed the tetrarch Herod Antipas (Mt 14:1; Lk 23:5-7) to rule the territory. He was appointed to office when 17 years old. Sepphoris was his first capital; in about <span>AD<\/span> 22 he built Tiberias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee as his new capital, in honor of the emperor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Products\">Products<\/p>\n<p>Abundant crops enabled Galilee to provide produce for the neighboring Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon around the middle of the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Main crops included grapes, pomegranates, olives, and grains. Fishing in the Sea of Galilee was a prominent business in NT times (Mk 1:14-20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusandGalilee\">Jesus and Galilee<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was raised in Galilee (Lk 4:16), and 11 of his 12 disciples were from there (Judas Iscariot was the only Judean).<\/p>\n<p>The culture, commerce, farming, and fishing business of the area formed the background for much of Jesus’ ministry, as his parables show (Mt 20:1-8; 21:33; Mk 4:3; Lk 13:6-9). The first three Gospels are largely occupied with Christ’s ministry in Galilee, with much of it being spent around the Sea of Galilee. Most of his parables (19 of 32) were spoken here, and the vast majority of his miracles (25 of 33) were performed in Galilee. Jesus received his greatest response in this region. The Sermon on the Mount was spoken in Galilee, and one of its mountains was the scene of the Lord’s transfiguration. Many of the women who followed Christ and ministered to him also came from there (Mt 27:55). Two of Christ’s most significant postresurrection appearances took place in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20; Jn 21:1-23), and one of Christ’s own titles, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:45), identified him as a Galilean.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galileans\">Galileans<\/p>\n<p>Since Jesus and most of the 12 disciples were from Galilee, it was natural for the term to be applied to all of his followers, especially since it implied that the movement was not as pure as Judean Judaism. Some interpreters believe that Luke 22:59 is an example of the use of “Galilean” as a title; in Acts 1:11 and 2:7 it is merely a geographical reference. One sure reference to Christians by that title appears in the work of the pagan philosopher Epictetus (<span>AD<\/span> 50?–135?), who was impressed with how Christians died for their faith. It is not clear how common the title of Galilean was, but it had obviously spread from Judea to Rome, where Epictetus lived.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Palestine; Sea of Galilee.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GALILEE<\/h3>\n<p>Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalBackground\">Historical Background<\/p>\n<p>In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in the hill country of Naphtali (Jos 20:7; cf. 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76).<\/p>\n<p>Galilee originally designated the area occupied by the tribes of Naphtali, Zebulun (Is 9:1), and possibly Asher (if Cabul in Jos 19:27 is the same city as in 1 Kgs 9:11-13). None of those tribes was able to completely expel the original Canaanite inhabitants (Jgs 1:30-33; 2:1-4), and as a result, Galilee tended to be racially mixed. The cities that King Solomon gave to Hiram, gentile king of Tyre, were within Galilee (1 Kgs 9:11), and the gentile intermixture in that area may have influenced Solomon’s choice of those cities for a gift. This racially mixed condition is also the probable basis for the designation in Isaiah 9:1, “Galilee of the nations” (cf. Mt 4:15; 1 Macc 5:15).<\/p>\n<p>During the monarchy, Galilee was a buffer zone between Israel and Syria, and it bore the brunt of Syrian invasions against Israel. This fact is cited by the prophet Isaiah (Is 9:1), but he saw it as the prelude to a brighter day when the messianic king would reign. Galilee was conquered by Syrian King Ben-hadad (1 Kgs 15:20) and was probably recovered by Israel’s King Ahab. Galilee was later subjugated by the Arameans under Hazael (2 Kgs 10:32; 12:18; 13:22) and regained by Jeroboam II (2 Kgs 14:23-25). As a result of Assyrian conquests in the area of Damascus and Galilee in 732 <span>BC<\/span> by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kgs 15:29), more Gentiles were imported into the area while many of the Jewish inhabitants were deported. This naturally led to greater gentile influence and domination in Galilee. Under the successive influence of Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Syria, Galilee was constantly experiencing infiltration and migration. From the time of the Assyrian conquest of Israel to about the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, Galilee’s population was dominated by Gentiles, with only a few Jews.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews remaining in Galilee were brought to Judea by Simon Maccabeus in 164 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Macc 5:21-23). Galilee was conquered by Aristobulus I (104–103 <span>BC<\/span>), who forced the inhabitants to be circumcised and to submit to Jewish laws, a work that probably already had been initiated by John Hyrcanus (134–104 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>Herod the Great (ruler under Rome, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>) affixed Galilee to his kingdom, and more Jews were attracted there. Josephus recorded that Galilee had 240 cities and villages and 100,000 men available to fight against the Romans. After the death of Herod the Great, Galilee was included in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39). With the banishment of Herod Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 39, Galilee was added to the territory of Herod Agrippa I, who ruled it until he died in <span>AD<\/span> 44. Rome directly administered Galilee until it was put under the rule of Herod Agrippa II. By siding with the Romans during the Jewish revolts, he was able to retain his position until <span>AD<\/span> 100. In spite of the Galileans’ attempt to gain independence, the revolutionary faction was brought under subjection by Vespasian in <span>AD<\/span> 67. After Herod Agrippa II’s death, Galilee became part of the Roman province of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the Sanhedrin and many other Jews of southern Palestine flocked to Galilee. As a result, such cities as Tiberias and Sepphoris became Jewish, and the dispersed Jews came to think of Galilee as their center. Tiberias became a center for Jewish learning, and it was there that such major contributions as the Tiberian system of vowel pointing the Hebrew consonantal text were made, as well as the formulation of the Mishnah and the Palestinian Talmud.<\/p>\n<p>From about <span>AD<\/span> 451 until the Muslim rule over Galilee began in the seventh century, Galilee was governed by the Christian patriarchate of Jerusalem, set up by the Council of Chalcedon in <span>AD<\/span> 451. Muslim rule from the seventh century on was continuous except for the intervals caused by the twelfth-century Crusades and World War I. All of Galilee has been included in the modern state of Israel since its establishment in 1948.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Boundaries\">Boundaries<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was bounded on the east by the upper Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee and on the south by the plain of Esdraelon, which served as a natural boundary between Galilee and Samaria. At times the plain was included in Galilee, as it was during the intertestamental period (1 Macc 10:30; 12:47-49). While the northern boundary was uncertain and variable during Galilee’s history, in NT times it reached to Lake Huleh. The western boundary followed the Mediterranean Sea to Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>From the time of the divided kingdom until the Assyrian conquest of Galilee (734 <span>BC<\/span>), it was the northernmost part of the kingdom of Israel. The area was divided into upper Galilee and lower Galilee by the plain of Ramah, which ran between Capernaum and Ptolemais (cf. Jdt 1:8; 1 Macc 12:49; Josephus’s <em>War<\/em> 3.3.1). In the Mishnah (compilation of early rabbinical interpretation of the Law), Galilee is divided into three parts corresponding to the natural divisions of plain, hill country, and mountain. Under Roman rule, Galilee was about 25 to 30 miles (40 to 50 kilometers) from east to west and about 35 to 40 miles (55 to 65 kilometers) from north to south.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>The attractive Galilean landscape is made up of volcanic limestone hills and fertile alluvial plains. Its climate is cooler than that of any other part of Palestine, and its beauty and fertility contrast sharply with the barren, sun-baked hills of southern Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The physical features range from the high mountains in the north to the plain of Esdraelon in the south. Mt Tabor is prominent on the east, while Mt Carmel stands out on the west. Much of upper Galilee is 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above sea level, and in NT times it was largely forested and less densely inhabited than lower Galilee. Lower Galilee starts at 1,500 to 2,000 feet (450 to 600 meters) above sea level and descends sharply to the Sea of Galilee, more than 600 feet (182.9 meters) below sea level.<\/p>\n<p>Besides the average annual rainfall of 25 inches (63.5 centimeters), Galilee is watered by the streams that flow from springs in the hills and are the main sources of the beautiful Kishon River at Janin, and the headwaters of the Jordan River, the largest river in Palestine. The ground is also moistened by heavy dews resulting from climatic conditions created by the Lebanon mountain range to the north.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cities\">Cities<\/p>\n<p>Among the more notable cities in Galilee’s early history were Kedesh in Naphtali, a city of refuge (Jos 20:7; 21:32; 1 Chr 6:76), and Hazor, about 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) north of the Sea of Galilee (Jos 11:10; 1 Kgs 9:15). During the time of Christ, Chorazin (Mt 11:21) and Capernaum (4:13; 11:23) were prominent cities located in the northeast near the Sea of Galilee. Capernaum seems to have been a center for Jesus’ ministry in the area (Mt 4:13; Mk 2:1; 9:33; etc.). Nazareth is especially significant as the city of Christ’s childhood (Mt 2:22-23; Lk 2:39; 4:16; etc.). Nain (Lk 7:11-17), located on the northern edge of the mountain now called Little Hermon, and Cana of Galilee (Jn 2:1-11) also figured prominently in Christ’s ministry. Sepphoris and Tiberias were important cities during Roman administration.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RoadsandTravel\">Roads and Travel<\/p>\n<p>Many roads traversed Galilee, and those in NT times were superior due to Roman construction and maintenance.<\/p>\n<p>Among the best-known trade routes was the Via Maris (the Way of the Sea), which ran through Galilee on its way from Damascus to Egypt. Another main road ran from Tiberias, near the Sea of Galilee, to Acco (Ptolemais), a port on the Phoenician coast. Major caravan routes also connected Galilee with the markets of the East. The area was tied together by a network of spurs and connecting roads that branched from the main highways.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inhabitants\">Inhabitants<\/p>\n<p>The occupants of Galilee (Galileans) were basically Jewish in religious and patriotic orientation, but they were composed of various ethnic elements. The influence of this mixture was sufficient to cause recognizable differences in speech from that of southern Palestine (cf. Mt 26:69, 73). The Galileans absorbed more Greek and Roman influences than did the Judean Jews. The racial mixture, differences in speech, and location caused Judean Jews to view Galilee and its inhabitants with contempt (Jn 1:46; 7:41, 52).<\/p>\n<p>Lower Galilee was densely settled with villages, and in NT times the population was probably about three million. The fertility of the soil and resultant fruitfulness of the country produced a prosperous Jewish populace, particularly in the centuries immediately after the time of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Government\">Government<\/p>\n<p>Galilee was under the Roman rule of emperors Augustus and Tiberius during the time of Christ. Roman fortifications throughout Galilee were a constant reminder of the presence and influence of the Roman Empire. During Christ’s ministry, Rome installed the tetrarch Herod Antipas (Mt 14:1; Lk 23:5-7) to rule the territory. He was appointed to office when 17 years old. Sepphoris was his first capital; in about <span>AD<\/span> 22 he built Tiberias on the shore of the Sea of Galilee as his new capital, in honor of the emperor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Products\">Products<\/p>\n<p>Abundant crops enabled Galilee to provide produce for the neighboring Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon around the middle of the first century <span>AD<\/span>. Main crops included grapes, pomegranates, olives, and grains. Fishing in the Sea of Galilee was a prominent business in NT times (Mk 1:14-20).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusandGalilee\">Jesus and Galilee<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was raised in Galilee (Lk 4:16), and 11 of his 12 disciples were from there (Judas Iscariot was the only Judean).<\/p>\n<p>The culture, commerce, farming, and fishing business of the area formed the background for much of Jesus’ ministry, as his parables show (Mt 20:1-8; 21:33; Mk 4:3; Lk 13:6-9). The first three Gospels are largely occupied with Christ’s ministry in Galilee, with much of it being spent around the Sea of Galilee. Most of his parables (19 of 32) were spoken here, and the vast majority of his miracles (25 of 33) were performed in Galilee. Jesus received his greatest response in this region. The Sermon on the Mount was spoken in Galilee, and one of its mountains was the scene of the Lord’s transfiguration. Many of the women who followed Christ and ministered to him also came from there (Mt 27:55). Two of Christ’s most significant postresurrection appearances took place in Galilee (Mt 28:16-20; Jn 21:1-23), and one of Christ’s own titles, Jesus of Nazareth (Jn 1:45), identified him as a Galilean.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galileans\">Galileans<\/p>\n<p>Since Jesus and most of the 12 disciples were from Galilee, it was natural for the term to be applied to all of his followers, especially since it implied that the movement was not as pure as Judean Judaism. Some interpreters believe that Luke 22:59 is an example of the use of “Galilean” as a title; in Acts 1:11 and 2:7 it is merely a geographical reference. One sure reference to Christians by that title appears in the work of the pagan philosopher Epictetus (<span>AD<\/span> 50?–135?), who was impressed with how Christians died for their faith. It is not clear how common the title of Galilean was, but it had obviously spread from Judea to Rome, where Epictetus lived.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Palestine; Sea of Galilee.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GALILEE Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.” Historical Background In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in...","summary_en":"GALILEE Area in northern Palestine that, in Israel’s earlier history, had boundaries that were not clearly defined but that became more precisely defined in the period of Roman rule. The English name Galilee comes from two Hebrew words meaning “circuit” or “district.” Historical Background In OT times Galilee was not significant in Israelite life, but in NT times it was a prominent Jewish population center. Galilee is first mentioned in the Bible as the location of Kedesh, a city of refuge in...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18860,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehu","title_en":"Jehu","content_ro":"<h3>JEHU<\/h3>\n<li>1. Prophet and son of the “seer” Hanani (2 Chr 16:7), who denounced Baasha for following in the ways of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:1-7). In addition to continuing the heretical worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, Baasha also assassinated Nadab, the son of Jeroboam (15:25-32).<\/li>\n<p>Jehu later rebuked Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for helping Ahab the king of Israel in his wars against the Arameans (2 Chr 19:1-2). The writings of this prophet were included in one of the records of the reign of Jehoshaphat, <em>The Book of the Kings of Israel<\/em> (2 Chr 20:34).<\/p>\n<li>2. Important army officer during the reigns of Ahab and Jehoram (2 Kgs 9:25), who in reaction to the economic and religious abuses of the house of Omri was anointed as king of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 19:16-17). In the following revolution he exterminated the royal house of Israel, the king of Judah, and a royal party from the south (2 Kgs 9–10). He executed the worshipers of Baal in order to revive true worship in Israel. As king, he ruled in Samaria 28 years (841–814 <span>BC<\/span>) and began a dynasty that lasted some 100 years.<\/li>\n<p>In the time of Jehu the prophets were engaged in a religious equivalent of war with the adherents of the Tyrian Baal. Elijah met and defeated the Canaanite priests on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:17-40). Later he and then Elisha were commissioned to anoint Jehu as king. The prophets waited until the time was right (2 Kgs 9:1-10), at which time Elisha sent a “son of the prophets” to Ramoth-gilead to designate Jehu as the monarch.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu left his siege of Ramoth-gilead in northern Transjordan to meet the king of Israel in Jezreel. There he killed King Jehoram and Ahaziah, the king of Judah (2 Kgs 9:17-28). His bloody ways continued as he extinguished the royal house of Ahab (10:1-17) and 42 ambassadors of goodwill from Judah (apparently without provocation, vv 12-14). Israel’s bloodbath finally ended in Samaria. There Jehu cunningly vowed to serve Baal with a zeal greater than that of Ahab. Unsuspecting devotees of Baal gathered in great numbers to join in a festival sacrifice. Instead, the devotees themselves became the sacrifice, and the house of Baal in Samaria was destroyed and desecrated by turning its ruins into a latrine (vv 18-27).<\/p>\n<p>Political and economic problems also contributed to the unrest. Under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel, justice was corrupted. The poor lost their land in the drought and their property rights were ignored (1 Kgs 18:5-6). Jehu threw the body of Jehoram into the field of Naboth the Jezreelite (2 Kgs 9:25-26) as justice for the crime of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kgs 21:19; cf. v 13). But religious passions dominated the cause. Jehu called his slaughter of the house of Omri his “zeal for the Lord.” Jehonadab, a Recabite, joined Jehu as he traveled toward Samaria (2 Kgs 10:15-17). Recabites opposed social and economic developments that took place in the northern kingdom under Ahab. They followed a strict moral code and lived a simple life (Jer 35). Since Recabites represented the most conservative elements of Yahwism, they became natural allies for the reform of Jehu.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s revolution seriously weakened the worship of Baal. Although not all of the adherents were eliminated, Baalism no longer remained the official religion of the state (2 Kgs 10:28). Rather, Baalism united with Yahwism to form the sinister syncretistic religion that was denounced by Hosea.<\/p>\n<p>Politically, the revolt of Jehu was disastrous. The triple alliance between Tyre, Israel, and Judah was shattered by the atrocities. Israel, now isolated, became easy prey for Assyria and Syria. Jehu attempted to buy some help from Assyria by paying tribute to Shalmaneser III. That event is pictured on the Black Obelisk in a relief from the campaign of 841 <span>BC<\/span>. An inscription names “Jehu, son of Omri,” as the one kneeling before Shalmaneser.<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat dissipated in 838 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, conquered all of Israelite Transjordan as far as the Arnon (2 Kgs 10:32-33). In a second campaign in 815 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael moved across the Jordan River, through the Jezreel plain, and down the coast, conquering the land as far as Gath in the northern Shephelah. There the son of Jehu, Jehoahaz, paid tribute to Hazael (12:18). The revolution weakened Israel both politically and economically.<\/p>\n<p>Later generations spoke of the massacre of the house of Omri with horror (Hos 1:4). Jehu did not destroy the golden calves of Jeroboam, and so continued the syncretistic worship at Bethel and Dan. In the final analysis the revolution, which was meant to purge Israel of oppression and false religion, succeeded in doing neither.<\/p>\n<li>3. Member of Judah’s tribe, the son of Obed and Azariah’s father (1 Chr 2:38).<\/li>\n<li>4. Prince of Simeon’s tribe, and the son of Joshibiah, who, along with others, migrated from the approaches to the valley of Gedor eastward in search of good pasture (1 Chr 4:35).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the skilled warriors who joined David at Ziklag. Interestingly, he was of Saul’s tribe, Benjamin, and from Anathoth, to which Abiathar of the priests of Eli was later banished (1 Chr 12:3).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEHU<\/h3>\n<li>1. Prophet and son of the “seer” Hanani (2 Chr 16:7), who denounced Baasha for following in the ways of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:1-7). In addition to continuing the heretical worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, Baasha also assassinated Nadab, the son of Jeroboam (15:25-32).<\/li>\n<p>Jehu later rebuked Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for helping Ahab the king of Israel in his wars against the Arameans (2 Chr 19:1-2). The writings of this prophet were included in one of the records of the reign of Jehoshaphat, <em>The Book of the Kings of Israel<\/em> (2 Chr 20:34).<\/p>\n<li>2. Important army officer during the reigns of Ahab and Jehoram (2 Kgs 9:25), who in reaction to the economic and religious abuses of the house of Omri was anointed as king of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 19:16-17). In the following revolution he exterminated the royal house of Israel, the king of Judah, and a royal party from the south (2 Kgs 9–10). He executed the worshipers of Baal in order to revive true worship in Israel. As king, he ruled in Samaria 28 years (841–814 <span>BC<\/span>) and began a dynasty that lasted some 100 years.<\/li>\n<p>In the time of Jehu the prophets were engaged in a religious equivalent of war with the adherents of the Tyrian Baal. Elijah met and defeated the Canaanite priests on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:17-40). Later he and then Elisha were commissioned to anoint Jehu as king. The prophets waited until the time was right (2 Kgs 9:1-10), at which time Elisha sent a “son of the prophets” to Ramoth-gilead to designate Jehu as the monarch.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu left his siege of Ramoth-gilead in northern Transjordan to meet the king of Israel in Jezreel. There he killed King Jehoram and Ahaziah, the king of Judah (2 Kgs 9:17-28). His bloody ways continued as he extinguished the royal house of Ahab (10:1-17) and 42 ambassadors of goodwill from Judah (apparently without provocation, vv 12-14). Israel’s bloodbath finally ended in Samaria. There Jehu cunningly vowed to serve Baal with a zeal greater than that of Ahab. Unsuspecting devotees of Baal gathered in great numbers to join in a festival sacrifice. Instead, the devotees themselves became the sacrifice, and the house of Baal in Samaria was destroyed and desecrated by turning its ruins into a latrine (vv 18-27).<\/p>\n<p>Political and economic problems also contributed to the unrest. Under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel, justice was corrupted. The poor lost their land in the drought and their property rights were ignored (1 Kgs 18:5-6). Jehu threw the body of Jehoram into the field of Naboth the Jezreelite (2 Kgs 9:25-26) as justice for the crime of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Kgs 21:19; cf. v 13). But religious passions dominated the cause. Jehu called his slaughter of the house of Omri his “zeal for the Lord.” Jehonadab, a Recabite, joined Jehu as he traveled toward Samaria (2 Kgs 10:15-17). Recabites opposed social and economic developments that took place in the northern kingdom under Ahab. They followed a strict moral code and lived a simple life (Jer 35). Since Recabites represented the most conservative elements of Yahwism, they became natural allies for the reform of Jehu.<\/p>\n<p>Jehu’s revolution seriously weakened the worship of Baal. Although not all of the adherents were eliminated, Baalism no longer remained the official religion of the state (2 Kgs 10:28). Rather, Baalism united with Yahwism to form the sinister syncretistic religion that was denounced by Hosea.<\/p>\n<p>Politically, the revolt of Jehu was disastrous. The triple alliance between Tyre, Israel, and Judah was shattered by the atrocities. Israel, now isolated, became easy prey for Assyria and Syria. Jehu attempted to buy some help from Assyria by paying tribute to Shalmaneser III. That event is pictured on the Black Obelisk in a relief from the campaign of 841 <span>BC<\/span>. An inscription names “Jehu, son of Omri,” as the one kneeling before Shalmaneser.<\/p>\n<p>After the Assyrian threat dissipated in 838 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus, conquered all of Israelite Transjordan as far as the Arnon (2 Kgs 10:32-33). In a second campaign in 815 <span>BC<\/span>, Hazael moved across the Jordan River, through the Jezreel plain, and down the coast, conquering the land as far as Gath in the northern Shephelah. There the son of Jehu, Jehoahaz, paid tribute to Hazael (12:18). The revolution weakened Israel both politically and economically.<\/p>\n<p>Later generations spoke of the massacre of the house of Omri with horror (Hos 1:4). Jehu did not destroy the golden calves of Jeroboam, and so continued the syncretistic worship at Bethel and Dan. In the final analysis the revolution, which was meant to purge Israel of oppression and false religion, succeeded in doing neither.<\/p>\n<li>3. Member of Judah’s tribe, the son of Obed and Azariah’s father (1 Chr 2:38).<\/li>\n<li>4. Prince of Simeon’s tribe, and the son of Joshibiah, who, along with others, migrated from the approaches to the valley of Gedor eastward in search of good pasture (1 Chr 4:35).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the skilled warriors who joined David at Ziklag. Interestingly, he was of Saul’s tribe, Benjamin, and from Anathoth, to which Abiathar of the priests of Eli was later banished (1 Chr 12:3).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEHU 1. Prophet and son of the “seer” Hanani (2 Chr 16:7), who denounced Baasha for following in the ways of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:1-7). In addition to continuing the heretical worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, Baasha also assassinated Nadab, the son of Jeroboam (15:25-32). Jehu later rebuked Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for helping Ahab the king of Israel in his wars against the Arameans (2 Chr 19:1-2). The writings of this prophet were included in one of the records of the reign o...","summary_en":"JEHU 1. Prophet and son of the “seer” Hanani (2 Chr 16:7), who denounced Baasha for following in the ways of Jeroboam (1 Kgs 16:1-7). In addition to continuing the heretical worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, Baasha also assassinated Nadab, the son of Jeroboam (15:25-32). Jehu later rebuked Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, for helping Ahab the king of Israel in his wars against the Arameans (2 Chr 19:1-2). The writings of this prophet were included in one of the records of the reign o...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47340,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","summary_en":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74966,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","summary_en":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102592,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","summary_en":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130218,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:18","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:18<\/strong> <em>Sacred objects . . . gold:<\/em> Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • <em>Hazael<\/em> had already begun the <em>attack<\/em> against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to <em>Hazael<\/em> may have prevented further destruction in the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","summary_en":"12:18 Sacred objects . . . gold: Such treasures had been contributed to the Temple earlier by Solomon and Asa (1 Kgs 7:51; 15:15). • Hazael had already begun the attack against Jerusalem, and Joash was wounded during the battle (2 Chr 24:25). Paying tribute to Hazael may have prevented further destruction in the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":1255,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Amaziah","title_en":"Amaziah","content_ro":"<h3>AMAZIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ninth king of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), who at age 25 succeeded his father, King Joash, when Joash was assassinated after a 40-year reign (2 Kgs 12:19-21). Amaziah’s mother was Jehoaddin. He ruled Judah for 29 years before he too was killed by assassins (14:18-20). When Amaziah began his reign, another Joash was ruling the northern kingdom of Israel (14:1-2).<\/li>\n<p>Amaziah was not like his ancestor David (2 Kgs 14:3). Like his father, Amaziah did things that pleased God, but he failed to remove the pagan shrines that were corrupting the nation’s religious life. He himself was respectful of the law of Moses, at least at the beginning (14:4-6).<\/p>\n<p>Amaziah was unwise in his dealings with the rival kingdom of Israel. To go to war against the Edomites, he hired 100,000 mercenaries from Israel. Warned by a prophet not to use them in battle, Amaziah discharged them. On their way out of Judah the angry soldiers raided cities and killed 3,000 people. Nevertheless, Amaziah’s troops were victorious against the Edomites. At the Valley of Salt they killed 10,000 of the enemy in battle and executed another 10,000 prisoners (2 Chr 25:5-13).<\/p>\n<p>Foolishly, Amaziah brought Edomite idols back with him after his conquest and was soon worshiping them. The Lord sent a prophet to announce Amaziah’s doom for such spiritual rebellion (2 Chr 25:14-16). Proud of his conquest of Edom, Amaziah soon declared war on King Joash of Israel. Joash warned him in a parable that Judah would be crushed like a thistle. Amaziah refused to back down, and the two armies met at Beth-shemesh in Judah. Amaziah’s army was routed. Jerusalem was captured and the temple and palace looted. Amaziah was taken prisoner but was evidently left in Jerusalem. He outlived Joash of Israel by 15 years (2 Chr 25:17-26). Amaziah was murdered in Lachish, to which he had fled when he heard about a plot against him in Jerusalem. His body was brought back to the capital city and buried in the royal cemetery (2 Chr 25:27-28).<\/p>\n<li>2. Father of Joshah, a member of Simeon’s tribe (1 Chr 4:34).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hilkiah’s son, a Levite of Merari’s clan (1 Chr 6:45).<\/li>\n<li>4. Priest of Bethel in the days of Jeroboam II and an opponent of the prophet Amos (Am 7:10-17).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AMAZIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ninth king of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), who at age 25 succeeded his father, King Joash, when Joash was assassinated after a 40-year reign (2 Kgs 12:19-21). Amaziah’s mother was Jehoaddin. He ruled Judah for 29 years before he too was killed by assassins (14:18-20). When Amaziah began his reign, another Joash was ruling the northern kingdom of Israel (14:1-2).<\/li>\n<p>Amaziah was not like his ancestor David (2 Kgs 14:3). Like his father, Amaziah did things that pleased God, but he failed to remove the pagan shrines that were corrupting the nation’s religious life. He himself was respectful of the law of Moses, at least at the beginning (14:4-6).<\/p>\n<p>Amaziah was unwise in his dealings with the rival kingdom of Israel. To go to war against the Edomites, he hired 100,000 mercenaries from Israel. Warned by a prophet not to use them in battle, Amaziah discharged them. On their way out of Judah the angry soldiers raided cities and killed 3,000 people. Nevertheless, Amaziah’s troops were victorious against the Edomites. At the Valley of Salt they killed 10,000 of the enemy in battle and executed another 10,000 prisoners (2 Chr 25:5-13).<\/p>\n<p>Foolishly, Amaziah brought Edomite idols back with him after his conquest and was soon worshiping them. The Lord sent a prophet to announce Amaziah’s doom for such spiritual rebellion (2 Chr 25:14-16). Proud of his conquest of Edom, Amaziah soon declared war on King Joash of Israel. Joash warned him in a parable that Judah would be crushed like a thistle. Amaziah refused to back down, and the two armies met at Beth-shemesh in Judah. Amaziah’s army was routed. Jerusalem was captured and the temple and palace looted. Amaziah was taken prisoner but was evidently left in Jerusalem. He outlived Joash of Israel by 15 years (2 Chr 25:17-26). Amaziah was murdered in Lachish, to which he had fled when he heard about a plot against him in Jerusalem. His body was brought back to the capital city and buried in the royal cemetery (2 Chr 25:27-28).<\/p>\n<li>2. Father of Joshah, a member of Simeon’s tribe (1 Chr 4:34).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hilkiah’s son, a Levite of Merari’s clan (1 Chr 6:45).<\/li>\n<li>4. Priest of Bethel in the days of Jeroboam II and an opponent of the prophet Amos (Am 7:10-17).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AMAZIAH 1. Ninth king of Judah (796–767 BC), who at age 25 succeeded his father, King Joash, when Joash was assassinated after a 40-year reign (2 Kgs 12:19-21). Amaziah’s mother was Jehoaddin. He ruled Judah for 29 years before he too was killed by assassins (14:18-20). When Amaziah began his reign, another Joash was ruling the northern kingdom of Israel (14:1-2). Amaziah was not like his ancestor David (2 Kgs 14:3). Like his father, Amaziah did things that pleased God, but he failed to remov...","summary_en":"AMAZIAH 1. Ninth king of Judah (796–767 BC), who at age 25 succeeded his father, King Joash, when Joash was assassinated after a 40-year reign (2 Kgs 12:19-21). Amaziah’s mother was Jehoaddin. He ruled Judah for 29 years before he too was killed by assassins (14:18-20). When Amaziah began his reign, another Joash was ruling the northern kingdom of Israel (14:1-2). Amaziah was not like his ancestor David (2 Kgs 14:3). Like his father, Amaziah did things that pleased God, but he failed to remov...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":18700,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehoash","title_en":"Jehoash","content_ro":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JEHOASH<\/h3>\n<p>Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the <span>Lord<\/span> is strong” or “the <span>Lord<\/span> hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives.<\/p>\n<p>1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of the king’s household by Athaliah (2 Kgs 11:1-3; 2 Chr 23:10-12). After remaining six years within the temple precinct, Jehoash was declared king at the age of seven and ruled for 40 years (2 Kgs 11:21–12:1; 2 Chr 24:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>His major activity during his reign was the renovation of the temple (2 Kgs 12:4-5; 2 Chr 24:4-5). When, by his 23d year, little progress had been made (2 Kgs 12:6), he revised the taxation schedule, commanded the people of Judah to bring their contributions directly to the Jerusalem temple, and soon restored the Lord’s house to its proper condition (2 Chr 24:13).<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the priest Jehoiada, Jehoash and Judah forsook the Lord and served the Asherim and the idols (2 Chr 24:15-18). Not heeding the prophetic warning of divine judgment (v 20), Jehoash and his people were conquered by the Arameans. Though Jehoash had once been able to avert a siege of Judah by paying tribute to Hazael (2 Kgs 12:17-18), the same strategy did not work a second time. The Arameans plundered Judah and Jerusalem, sending the spoil to Hazael in Damascus (2 Chr 24:23-24). Jehoash was assassinated by his servants Jozacar (Jozabad\/Zabad) and Jehozabad while recuperating from wounds incurred in battle with the Arameans (2 Kgs 12:20-21; 2 Chr 24:25-26).<\/p>\n<li>2. Son of Jehoahaz and 13th king of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>). Jehoash enjoyed a measure of military success that had eluded his father. No longer subject to punitive military exploits from Hazael of Aram, he was able to establish political stability in the northern kingdom. In fact, he subjugated the southern kingdom of Judah while Amaziah was king in Jerusalem (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>). The conflict between Amaziah and Jehoash was precipitated mainly by Amaziah. Overconfident with his victories in Edom, Amaziah initiated a military conflict with Israel (2 Chr 25:17-19). The battle was fought near Beth-shemesh in the Judean Shephelah. King Jehoash routed the army of Judah, captured Amaziah, and moved on to Jerusalem. Destroying the outer wall from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate, he entered the capital city and plundered the treasures of both the palace and the temple (vv 21-24). He was apparently used as an instrument of the Lord to subdue Judah (v 20).<\/li>\n<p>A contemporary of Jehoash was Elisha the prophet. In spite of the pervasive wickedness in Israel and the apostasy of the king himself (2 Kgs 13:10-11), Jehoash still sought the counsel of this prophet of the Lord. While Elisha was on his deathbed, Jehoash sought the prophet’s blessing (v 14). Elisha assured the king that the Arameans would be defeated by Israel at Aphek and that Israel would enjoy three decisive victories over this same enemy (vv 15-19). During his 16-year reign, Jehoash achieved political stability in the northern kingdom. Though considered an evil king, he was used as an instrument of judgment against Amaziah of Judah and enjoyed the blessing of Yahweh against Aram.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","summary_en":"JEHOASH Name of two OT kings, occurring only in the book of 2 Kings. The name means “the Lord is strong” or “the Lord hath bestowed.” Joash, the shorter form of the name, frequently appears in the Kings and Chronicles narratives. 1. Son of Ahaziah and seventh king of Judah (835–796 BC). Jehoash ascended the throne after the wicked Athaliah had been killed at the command of Jehoiada the priest. As an infant, he was hidden by his aunt Jehosheba in the temple and thus survived the slaughter of t...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25766,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Millo","title_en":"Millo","content_ro":"<h3>MILLO<\/h3>\n<li>1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. <em>See<\/em> Beth-millo.<\/li>\n<li>2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27).<\/li>\n<p>Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 Chr 32:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MILLO<\/h3>\n<li>1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. <em>See<\/em> Beth-millo.<\/li>\n<li>2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27).<\/li>\n<p>Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 Chr 32:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MILLO 1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. See Beth-millo. 2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27). Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 C...","summary_en":"MILLO 1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. See Beth-millo. 2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27). Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 C...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35378,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Silla","title_en":"Silla","content_ro":"<h3>SILLA<\/h3>\n<p>Geographical landmark defining the whereabouts of “the house of Millo,” the place of King Joash’s murder (2 Kgs 12:20). Its exact location is unknown, though it was probably in the vicinity of Jerusalem.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SILLA<\/h3>\n<p>Geographical landmark defining the whereabouts of “the house of Millo,” the place of King Joash’s murder (2 Kgs 12:20). Its exact location is unknown, though it was probably in the vicinity of Jerusalem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SILLA Geographical landmark defining the whereabouts of “the house of Millo,” the place of King Joash’s murder (2 Kgs 12:20). Its exact location is unknown, though it was probably in the vicinity of Jerusalem.","summary_en":"SILLA Geographical landmark defining the whereabouts of “the house of Millo,” the place of King Joash’s murder (2 Kgs 12:20). Its exact location is unknown, though it was probably in the vicinity of Jerusalem.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47341,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","summary_en":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":47342,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","summary_en":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74967,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","summary_en":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74968,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","summary_en":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102593,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","summary_en":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102594,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","summary_en":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130219,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20-21<\/strong> The assassination of the king in 796 <span>BC<\/span> by some of his own <em>officers<\/em> was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","summary_en":"12:20-21 The assassination of the king in 796 BC by some of his own officers was in reprisal for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah (2 Chr 24:21-22, 25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130220,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 2 Împărați 12:20","title_en":"Study Note: 2 Împărați 12:20","content_ro":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>12:20<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo:<\/em> This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • <em>The road to Silla<\/em> is otherwise unknown.<\/p>","summary_ro":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","summary_en":"12:20 Beth-millo: This district lay on a ridge of the eastern hill of Jerusalem in an area known as the City of David, where Solomon installed a series of supporting terraces (1 Kgs 9:15). • The road to Silla is otherwise unknown.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":18835,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jehozabad","title_en":"Jehozabad","content_ro":"<h3>JEHOZABAD<\/h3>\n<li>1. Shomer’s son, who was a servant of King Joash and later, with another assailant, murdered the king at Millo (2 Kgs 12:21). In a parallel passage, Jehozabad is called the son of Shimrith the Moabitess (2 Chr 24:26). King Amaziah, Joash’s son, eventually executed Jehozabad for the murder (25:3).<\/li>\n<li>2. Obed-edom’s second son and a member of a Levitical Korahite family appointed by King David to be gatekeepers in the temple (1 Chr 26:4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Benjamite military commander who served under King Jehoshaphat of Judah and commanded 180,000 men in his army (2 Chr 17:18).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JEHOZABAD<\/h3>\n<li>1. Shomer’s son, who was a servant of King Joash and later, with another assailant, murdered the king at Millo (2 Kgs 12:21). In a parallel passage, Jehozabad is called the son of Shimrith the Moabitess (2 Chr 24:26). King Amaziah, Joash’s son, eventually executed Jehozabad for the murder (25:3).<\/li>\n<li>2. Obed-edom’s second son and a member of a Levitical Korahite family appointed by King David to be gatekeepers in the temple (1 Chr 26:4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Benjamite military commander who served under King Jehoshaphat of Judah and commanded 180,000 men in his army (2 Chr 17:18).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JEHOZABAD 1. Shomer’s son, who was a servant of King Joash and later, with another assailant, murdered the king at Millo (2 Kgs 12:21). In a parallel passage, Jehozabad is called the son of Shimrith the Moabitess (2 Chr 24:26). King Amaziah, Joash’s son, eventually executed Jehozabad for the murder (25:3). 2. Obed-edom’s second son and a member of a Levitical Korahite family appointed by King David to be gatekeepers in the temple (1 Chr 26:4). 3. Benjamite military commander who served under ...","summary_en":"JEHOZABAD 1. Shomer’s son, who was a servant of King Joash and later, with another assailant, murdered the king at Millo (2 Kgs 12:21). In a parallel passage, Jehozabad is called the son of Shimrith the Moabitess (2 Chr 24:26). King Amaziah, Joash’s son, eventually executed Jehozabad for the murder (25:3). 2. Obed-edom’s second son and a member of a Levitical Korahite family appointed by King David to be gatekeepers in the temple (1 Chr 26:4). 3. Benjamite military commander who served under ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20950,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jozabad","title_en":"Jozabad","content_ro":"<h3>JOZABAD<\/h3>\n<li>1. Benjamite from Gederah and one of the military men who came to David’s support at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4).<\/li>\n<li>2, 3. Leaders and mighty warriors from Manasseh’s tribe who joined David at Ziklag to fight against Saul (1 Chr 12:20).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of the Levites who assisted with the administration of the temple contributions in Jerusalem during King Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 31:13).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the Levitical chiefs who generously gave animals to the Levites for the celebration of the Passover feast during King Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 35:9).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Levite, the son of Jeshua, and one who helped Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah take inventory of the temple’s gifts and precious metals during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li> 7. Priest and one of the six sons of Pashhur who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:22).<\/li>\n<li> 8. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li> 9. One of the Levites who assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law during the postexilic period (Neh 8:7).<\/li>\n<li>10. One of the Levites who relocated to Jerusalem and was put in charge of the work of the temple during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:16).<\/li>\n<li>11. Alternate rendering for Shimeath’s son in 2 Kings 12:21. <em>See<\/em> Jozacar, Jozachar.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOZABAD<\/h3>\n<li>1. Benjamite from Gederah and one of the military men who came to David’s support at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4).<\/li>\n<li>2, 3. Leaders and mighty warriors from Manasseh’s tribe who joined David at Ziklag to fight against Saul (1 Chr 12:20).<\/li>\n<li>4. One of the Levites who assisted with the administration of the temple contributions in Jerusalem during King Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 31:13).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the Levitical chiefs who generously gave animals to the Levites for the celebration of the Passover feast during King Josiah’s reign (2 Chr 35:9).<\/li>\n<li> 6. Levite, the son of Jeshua, and one who helped Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah take inventory of the temple’s gifts and precious metals during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li> 7. Priest and one of the six sons of Pashhur who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife during the postexilic era (Ezr 10:22).<\/li>\n<li> 8. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li> 9. One of the Levites who assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law during the postexilic period (Neh 8:7).<\/li>\n<li>10. One of the Levites who relocated to Jerusalem and was put in charge of the work of the temple during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:16).<\/li>\n<li>11. Alternate rendering for Shimeath’s son in 2 Kings 12:21. <em>See<\/em> Jozacar, Jozachar.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOZABAD 1. Benjamite from Gederah and one of the military men who came to David’s support at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4). 2, 3. Leaders and mighty warriors from Manasseh’s tribe who joined David at Ziklag to fight against Saul (1 Chr 12:20). 4. One of the Levites who assisted with the administration of the temple contributions in Jerusalem during King Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 31:13). 5. One of the Levitical chiefs who generously gave animals to the Levites for the celebration of the Passover feast dur...","summary_en":"JOZABAD 1. Benjamite from Gederah and one of the military men who came to David’s support at Ziklag (1 Chr 12:4). 2, 3. Leaders and mighty warriors from Manasseh’s tribe who joined David at Ziklag to fight against Saul (1 Chr 12:20). 4. One of the Levites who assisted with the administration of the temple contributions in Jerusalem during King Hezekiah’s reign (2 Chr 31:13). 5. One of the Levitical chiefs who generously gave animals to the Levites for the celebration of the Passover feast dur...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20951,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jozacar*, Jozachar*","title_en":"Jozacar*, Jozachar*","content_ro":"<h3>JOZACAR*, JOZACHAR*<\/h3>\n<p>Son of Shimeath the Ammonitess and one of the royal servants who conspired against the murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 12:21). He is alternately called Zabad in 2 Chronicles 24:26. <em>See<\/em> Zabad.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOZACAR*, JOZACHAR*<\/h3>\n<p>Son of Shimeath the Ammonitess and one of the royal servants who conspired against the murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 12:21). He is alternately called Zabad in 2 Chronicles 24:26. <em>See<\/em> Zabad.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOZACAR*, JOZACHAR* Son of Shimeath the Ammonitess and one of the royal servants who conspired against the murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 12:21). He is alternately called Zabad in 2 Chronicles 24:26. See Zabad.","summary_en":"JOZACAR*, JOZACHAR* Son of Shimeath the Ammonitess and one of the royal servants who conspired against the murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Kgs 12:21). He is alternately called Zabad in 2 Chronicles 24:26. See Zabad.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35095,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shimeath","title_en":"Shimeath","content_ro":"<h3>SHIMEATH<\/h3>\n<p>Ammonitess mother (2 Chr 24:26) or perhaps father (2 Kgs 12:21) of one of the royal servants who conspired against and murdered King Jehoash of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHIMEATH<\/h3>\n<p>Ammonitess mother (2 Chr 24:26) or perhaps father (2 Kgs 12:21) of one of the royal servants who conspired against and murdered King Jehoash of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHIMEATH Ammonitess mother (2 Chr 24:26) or perhaps father (2 Kgs 12:21) of one of the royal servants who conspired against and murdered King Jehoash of Judah (835–796 BC).","summary_en":"SHIMEATH Ammonitess mother (2 Chr 24:26) or perhaps father (2 Kgs 12:21) of one of the royal servants who conspired against and murdered King Jehoash of Judah (835–796 BC).","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35137,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shimrith*","title_en":"Shimrith*","content_ro":"<h3>SHIMRITH*<\/h3>\n<p>Moabitess mother of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who along with Zabad conspired against and murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Chr 24:26, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). She is alternately called Shomer in 2 Kings 12:21; Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. <em>See<\/em> Shomer #1.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHIMRITH*<\/h3>\n<p>Moabitess mother of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who along with Zabad conspired against and murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Chr 24:26, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). She is alternately called Shomer in 2 Kings 12:21; Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. <em>See<\/em> Shomer #1.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHIMRITH* Moabitess mother of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who along with Zabad conspired against and murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Chr 24:26, nlt mg). She is alternately called Shomer in 2 Kings 12:21; Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. See Shomer #1.","summary_en":"SHIMRITH* Moabitess mother of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who along with Zabad conspired against and murdered King Joash of Judah (2 Chr 24:26, nlt mg). She is alternately called Shomer in 2 Kings 12:21; Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. See Shomer #1.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35203,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shomer","title_en":"Shomer","content_ro":"<h3>SHOMER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father (2 Kgs 12:21), or perhaps the Moabite mother (2 Chr 24:26), of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who, with Jozacar, conspired against and murdered Joash, king of Judah. Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. <em>See<\/em> Shimrith.<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate name for Shemer, Heber’s son, in 1 Chronicles 7:34. <em>See<\/em> Shemer #3.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SHOMER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Father (2 Kgs 12:21), or perhaps the Moabite mother (2 Chr 24:26), of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who, with Jozacar, conspired against and murdered Joash, king of Judah. Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. <em>See<\/em> Shimrith.<\/li>\n<li>2. Alternate name for Shemer, Heber’s son, in 1 Chronicles 7:34. <em>See<\/em> Shemer #3.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SHOMER 1. Father (2 Kgs 12:21), or perhaps the Moabite mother (2 Chr 24:26), of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who, with Jozacar, conspired against and murdered Joash, king of Judah. Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. See Shimrith. 2. Alternate name for Shemer, Heber’s son, in 1 Chronicles 7:34. See Shemer #3.","summary_en":"SHOMER 1. Father (2 Kgs 12:21), or perhaps the Moabite mother (2 Chr 24:26), of Jehozabad, a royal servant, who, with Jozacar, conspired against and murdered Joash, king of Judah. Shimrith is the feminine form of Shomer. See Shimrith. 2. Alternate name for Shemer, Heber’s son, in 1 Chronicles 7:34. See Shemer #3.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38826,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zabad","title_en":"Zabad","content_ro":"<h3>ZABAD<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Nathan (1 Chr 2:36) and a descendant of Ahlai the daughter of Sheshan (vv 30, 34-36).<\/li>\n<li>2. Tahath’s son and the father of Shuthelah from Ephraim’s tribe (1 Chr 7:21).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of David’s mighty men, listed as a son of Ahlai (1 Chr 11:41); he is perhaps the same as #1 above.<\/li>\n<li>4. One of the assassins of King Joash, listed as the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess (2 Chr 24:26). He is identical to Jozacar (alternately “Jozabad”) in 2 Kings 12:21. Zabad was a palace official who was likely the agent of a powerful conspiracy against Joash.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jozacar, Jozachar.<\/p>\n<li>5–7. Three priests variously descended from Zattu, Hashum, and Nebo, who renounced their foreign wives at Ezra’s request during the postexilic period (Ezr 10:27, 33, 43).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ZABAD<\/h3>\n<li>1. Son of Nathan (1 Chr 2:36) and a descendant of Ahlai the daughter of Sheshan (vv 30, 34-36).<\/li>\n<li>2. Tahath’s son and the father of Shuthelah from Ephraim’s tribe (1 Chr 7:21).<\/li>\n<li>3. One of David’s mighty men, listed as a son of Ahlai (1 Chr 11:41); he is perhaps the same as #1 above.<\/li>\n<li>4. One of the assassins of King Joash, listed as the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess (2 Chr 24:26). He is identical to Jozacar (alternately “Jozabad”) in 2 Kings 12:21. Zabad was a palace official who was likely the agent of a powerful conspiracy against Joash.<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Jozacar, Jozachar.<\/p>\n<li>5–7. Three priests variously descended from Zattu, Hashum, and Nebo, who renounced their foreign wives at Ezra’s request during the postexilic period (Ezr 10:27, 33, 43).<\/li>","summary_ro":"ZABAD 1. Son of Nathan (1 Chr 2:36) and a descendant of Ahlai the daughter of Sheshan (vv 30, 34-36). 2. Tahath’s son and the father of Shuthelah from Ephraim’s tribe (1 Chr 7:21). 3. One of David’s mighty men, listed as a son of Ahlai (1 Chr 11:41); he is perhaps the same as #1 above. 4. One of the assassins of King Joash, listed as the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess (2 Chr 24:26). He is identical to Jozacar (alternately “Jozabad”) in 2 Kings 12:21. Zabad was a palace official who was likely...","summary_en":"ZABAD 1. Son of Nathan (1 Chr 2:36) and a descendant of Ahlai the daughter of Sheshan (vv 30, 34-36). 2. Tahath’s son and the father of Shuthelah from Ephraim’s tribe (1 Chr 7:21). 3. One of David’s mighty men, listed as a son of Ahlai (1 Chr 11:41); he is perhaps the same as #1 above. 4. One of the assassins of King Joash, listed as the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess (2 Chr 24:26). He is identical to Jozacar (alternately “Jozabad”) in 2 Kings 12:21. Zabad was a palace official who was likely...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
2 Împărați 12
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨