Citește Biblia

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":17478,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Inheritance","title_en":"Inheritance","content_ro":"<h3>INHERITANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LegalandHistoricalAspect\">Legal and Historical Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchs<\/h5>\n<p>We learn something of early-second-millennium <span>BC<\/span> practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. Yet exceptions abound. Ishmael (Gn 16:15; 17:15-21), Esau (25:23), and Reuben (49:3-4) did not receive the birthright. Another item of special interest is Abraham’s suggestion that, in the absence of a son, his servant Eliezer might be regarded as the heir (15:2-5); scholars have found confirmation of this practice in Hurrian legal documents of the second millennium.<\/p>\n<h5>The Hebrew Nation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Hebrew firstborns were legally entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. Israelite law also made provision for widows through the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; see Gn 38:8; Ru 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>According to Numbers 27:1-11, the daughters of Zelophehad argued that they should receive the inheritance since their father had died without sons. Consequently, God decreed that if a man died without sons, the inheritance should be transferred to his daughter; if he had no daughter, to his brothers; if he had no brothers, to his nearest relatives. This particular incident also illustrates the importance of preserving tribal possessions: the daughters of Zelophehad were not allowed to marry outside the tribe of Manasseh, for this would mean transferral of the property to another tribe (Nm 36).<\/p>\n<p>How highly the Israelites valued their family’s inherited possessions may be gathered from Leviticus 25:25-28. If an individual sold his land for financial reasons, provision must be made for a relative to redeem it; if he had no near relative, he could still purchase it back at a later time, and even if he could not afford to do so, the land automatically reverted to him in the Year of Jubilee, when all debts were canceled (note also Lv 27:14-25).<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from the reference to levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23-33 (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40), the NT has little to say about principles of property transferral during Roman times.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son in the family requested his share of the inheritance (Lk 15:12). One should also note that the elder son, who with false piety looked down on his brother’s behavior, had not protested when his brother asked for the inheritance; on the contrary, the elder brother too, without complaining, received his share—presumably a double portion.<\/p>\n<p>In another significant passage (Gal 4:1-2) Paul, seeking to illustrate a theological point, refers to secular practices. An heir, he tells us, is subject to guardians and managers during his childhood, up to the time he actually inherits. The point Paul wants to establish is clear enough, but the illustration does not coincide with what we know of Roman law and unfortunately scholars have been unable to identify the precise social custom in view. It may be that Paul was making reference, in general rather than strict legal terms, to some practice with which he and the Galatians were familiar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalAspect\">Theological Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>Canaan as Israel’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>The conviction that God gave Palestine to the Israelites for their inheritance serves as a bridge between the historical and the theological data. The historical element lies in the obvious fact that the Promised Land, a physical entity, was certainly occupied by the Hebrews and distributed among their tribes. Theologically, however, the Scriptures speak of this occupation as a divine gift; in effect, even the method of distribution was based on the concept that the land belongs to God (Lv 25:23; see Ex 15:17; Jos 22:27; Ez 38:16; Jl 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The theme goes back to Genesis 12:1-3. God, in choosing Abraham, instructed him to move to a new country and promised to make him a great and blessed nation (Heb 11:8). The significance of the land in this Abrahamic promise is made more explicit later, when we are told that God promised to give Canaan to Abraham’s descendants after four centuries of Egyptian bondage (Gn 15:12-21; see Acts 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Since Canaan was occupied by wicked inhabitants, the land was to be taken by force; to inherit the land therefore really means <em>to take possession<\/em> of it. Israel must trust God, whose land it is, to give them the victory (Jos 1:1-9; 21:43-45; Jgs 7:2; Ps 44:1-3; Acts 13:19). Once they conquered the land, it was apportioned among the tribes according to their size (following the instructions in Nm 26:52-54). God further commanded the people to divide the land by lot (vv 55-56). Thus, from the initial promise to Abraham, to the actual apportionment of the land and even with reference to the future (Is 60:21; Ez 45:1-8; 47:13–48:29), the people were made fully aware that their inheritance lay in the hands of a sovereign Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Believer’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>In the OT we find the concept of inheritance transferred from the purely physical to the spiritual. The tribe of Levi, which constituted the priestly clan, received no inheritance, because “the Lord is their inheritance” (Dt 18:1-2; see Nm 18:8-24). The Levites, in other words, received no land apportionment, but in their service to God they could begin to enjoy the fuller blessings to which the land inheritance pointed.<\/p>\n<p>That this truth could not be restricted to Levites is hinted at in Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is called “a kingdom of priests” (see 1 Pt 2:9). Psalm 16 makes it clear that no one understood more clearly than David what those words entailed. Even if he were deprived of Israel’s physical inheritance, he had received by lot a more beautiful heritage, the Lord himself, in whose presence he found full joy and everlasting pleasures (Ps 16:5-6, 11; see also Pss 73:25-26; 142:5; Is 58:14; Lam 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>In later Judaism, during and after the intertestamental period, the figure was extended considerably. For example, the rabbis began to speak of the law as the inheritance of the faithful. Further, they might give the idea a negative turn, as when the wicked are said to inherit hell (cf. Jb 27:13). Neither of these figures is found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>We also read in Jewish literature statements about inheriting the age to come, the kingdom, eternal life; these ideas occur frequently in the NT (Mt 19:29; 25:34; Lk 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Ti 3:7; Jas 2:5). Such an inheritance, however, belongs only to those who are sanctified by God’s word (Acts 20:32; 26:18; Col 1:12; note also Jn 17:17; Col 3:23-24). These future blessings do not exclude the physical (Mt 5:5; note Ps 37:11, 29; Is 60:21; Rom 4:13; 2 Pt 3:13), but they certainly exclude human frailty, for God’s inheritance is imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). In short, our heritage is nothing less than full salvation (Heb 1:14; 11:7), which God carefully guards for us in heaven (1 Pt 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, the most significant feature in the NT is its emphasis that, as a result of the work of Christ, his people begin even <em>now<\/em> to receive the promised inheritance. The Gospel of John frequently stresses the present reality of eternal life, as does the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 6:12-17 with 9:15 and 11:13, 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>Paul treats this whole matter thoroughly in Galatians 3:7–4:7. In response to the Judaizers, who claim that the Abrahamic inheritance is restricted to those who become Jews through circumcision, Paul argues vigorously that Abraham’s true children are those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (3:7; see Acts 26:16-18; Eph 3:6). They become heirs of God’s promise, for they receive the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The principle of inheritance is promise, not the Law (v 18). Those who believe are brought into union with Christ (vv 27-29); but then they are not merely Abraham’s children but God’s (v 26), for Christ is the Son of God and God has determined to send the Spirit of his Son to believers so that they too may call God <em>Father<\/em> (Gal 4:4-7; see also Rom 8:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Christ himself as the Son is the true heir (Mt 21:38; Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14); he has inherited a name above every name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:4) and has been appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2; see Ps 2:7-8; Mt 28:18). But by his grace, all who become his through faith are counted joint heirs with him (Rom 8:17).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>With a bold shift in the metaphor, the Scriptures speak of believers as God’s inheritance. In the beautiful “Song of Moses” the author speaks of God as the Israelites’ Father (Dt 32:6), who has taken special interest in their inheritance (v 8). Then we are told why God cares: “For the <span>Lord<\/span>’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Dt 32:9, <span>niv<\/span>). This theme becomes very prominent throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 9:26-29; 1 Kgs 8:51-53; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; Is 19:25; Jer 10:16; Zec 2:12). Elsewhere, Israel is spoken of as God’s special possession (e.g., Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians 1:14 “the redemption of the possession” refers to the final salvation of believers, who are God’s treasure. Further, “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph 1:11) may well be translated, “we have been made an inheritance,” that is, been “chosen as God’s portion,” a view supported by verse 18. No more fundamental idea than this can be found in Scripture, and its essence is expressed by the words of the One who sits on the throne: “He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rv 21:7, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Lv 26:11-12; 2 Sm 7:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adoption; Birthright; Firstborn; Heir.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INHERITANCE<\/h3>\n<p>Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LegalandHistoricalAspect\">Legal and Historical Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchs<\/h5>\n<p>We learn something of early-second-millennium <span>BC<\/span> practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. Yet exceptions abound. Ishmael (Gn 16:15; 17:15-21), Esau (25:23), and Reuben (49:3-4) did not receive the birthright. Another item of special interest is Abraham’s suggestion that, in the absence of a son, his servant Eliezer might be regarded as the heir (15:2-5); scholars have found confirmation of this practice in Hurrian legal documents of the second millennium.<\/p>\n<h5>The Hebrew Nation<\/h5>\n<p>According to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, Hebrew firstborns were legally entitled to a double portion of the inheritance. Israelite law also made provision for widows through the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; see Gn 38:8; Ru 4:5).<\/p>\n<p>According to Numbers 27:1-11, the daughters of Zelophehad argued that they should receive the inheritance since their father had died without sons. Consequently, God decreed that if a man died without sons, the inheritance should be transferred to his daughter; if he had no daughter, to his brothers; if he had no brothers, to his nearest relatives. This particular incident also illustrates the importance of preserving tribal possessions: the daughters of Zelophehad were not allowed to marry outside the tribe of Manasseh, for this would mean transferral of the property to another tribe (Nm 36).<\/p>\n<p>How highly the Israelites valued their family’s inherited possessions may be gathered from Leviticus 25:25-28. If an individual sold his land for financial reasons, provision must be made for a relative to redeem it; if he had no near relative, he could still purchase it back at a later time, and even if he could not afford to do so, the land automatically reverted to him in the Year of Jubilee, when all debts were canceled (note also Lv 27:14-25).<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>Apart from the reference to levirate marriage in Matthew 22:23-33 (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40), the NT has little to say about principles of property transferral during Roman times.<\/p>\n<p>In the parable of the prodigal son, the younger son in the family requested his share of the inheritance (Lk 15:12). One should also note that the elder son, who with false piety looked down on his brother’s behavior, had not protested when his brother asked for the inheritance; on the contrary, the elder brother too, without complaining, received his share—presumably a double portion.<\/p>\n<p>In another significant passage (Gal 4:1-2) Paul, seeking to illustrate a theological point, refers to secular practices. An heir, he tells us, is subject to guardians and managers during his childhood, up to the time he actually inherits. The point Paul wants to establish is clear enough, but the illustration does not coincide with what we know of Roman law and unfortunately scholars have been unable to identify the precise social custom in view. It may be that Paul was making reference, in general rather than strict legal terms, to some practice with which he and the Galatians were familiar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheologicalAspect\">Theological Aspect<\/p>\n<h5>Canaan as Israel’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>The conviction that God gave Palestine to the Israelites for their inheritance serves as a bridge between the historical and the theological data. The historical element lies in the obvious fact that the Promised Land, a physical entity, was certainly occupied by the Hebrews and distributed among their tribes. Theologically, however, the Scriptures speak of this occupation as a divine gift; in effect, even the method of distribution was based on the concept that the land belongs to God (Lv 25:23; see Ex 15:17; Jos 22:27; Ez 38:16; Jl 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>The theme goes back to Genesis 12:1-3. God, in choosing Abraham, instructed him to move to a new country and promised to make him a great and blessed nation (Heb 11:8). The significance of the land in this Abrahamic promise is made more explicit later, when we are told that God promised to give Canaan to Abraham’s descendants after four centuries of Egyptian bondage (Gn 15:12-21; see Acts 7:5).<\/p>\n<p>Since Canaan was occupied by wicked inhabitants, the land was to be taken by force; to inherit the land therefore really means <em>to take possession<\/em> of it. Israel must trust God, whose land it is, to give them the victory (Jos 1:1-9; 21:43-45; Jgs 7:2; Ps 44:1-3; Acts 13:19). Once they conquered the land, it was apportioned among the tribes according to their size (following the instructions in Nm 26:52-54). God further commanded the people to divide the land by lot (vv 55-56). Thus, from the initial promise to Abraham, to the actual apportionment of the land and even with reference to the future (Is 60:21; Ez 45:1-8; 47:13–48:29), the people were made fully aware that their inheritance lay in the hands of a sovereign Lord.<\/p>\n<h5>The Believer’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>In the OT we find the concept of inheritance transferred from the purely physical to the spiritual. The tribe of Levi, which constituted the priestly clan, received no inheritance, because “the Lord is their inheritance” (Dt 18:1-2; see Nm 18:8-24). The Levites, in other words, received no land apportionment, but in their service to God they could begin to enjoy the fuller blessings to which the land inheritance pointed.<\/p>\n<p>That this truth could not be restricted to Levites is hinted at in Exodus 19:6, where the whole nation is called “a kingdom of priests” (see 1 Pt 2:9). Psalm 16 makes it clear that no one understood more clearly than David what those words entailed. Even if he were deprived of Israel’s physical inheritance, he had received by lot a more beautiful heritage, the Lord himself, in whose presence he found full joy and everlasting pleasures (Ps 16:5-6, 11; see also Pss 73:25-26; 142:5; Is 58:14; Lam 3:24).<\/p>\n<p>In later Judaism, during and after the intertestamental period, the figure was extended considerably. For example, the rabbis began to speak of the law as the inheritance of the faithful. Further, they might give the idea a negative turn, as when the wicked are said to inherit hell (cf. Jb 27:13). Neither of these figures is found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p>We also read in Jewish literature statements about inheriting the age to come, the kingdom, eternal life; these ideas occur frequently in the NT (Mt 19:29; 25:34; Lk 10:25; 18:18; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Ti 3:7; Jas 2:5). Such an inheritance, however, belongs only to those who are sanctified by God’s word (Acts 20:32; 26:18; Col 1:12; note also Jn 17:17; Col 3:23-24). These future blessings do not exclude the physical (Mt 5:5; note Ps 37:11, 29; Is 60:21; Rom 4:13; 2 Pt 3:13), but they certainly exclude human frailty, for God’s inheritance is imperishable (1 Cor 15:50). In short, our heritage is nothing less than full salvation (Heb 1:14; 11:7), which God carefully guards for us in heaven (1 Pt 1:4).<\/p>\n<p>Doubtless, the most significant feature in the NT is its emphasis that, as a result of the work of Christ, his people begin even <em>now<\/em> to receive the promised inheritance. The Gospel of John frequently stresses the present reality of eternal life, as does the Letter to the Hebrews (cf. 6:12-17 with 9:15 and 11:13, 39-40).<\/p>\n<p>Paul treats this whole matter thoroughly in Galatians 3:7–4:7. In response to the Judaizers, who claim that the Abrahamic inheritance is restricted to those who become Jews through circumcision, Paul argues vigorously that Abraham’s true children are those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile (3:7; see Acts 26:16-18; Eph 3:6). They become heirs of God’s promise, for they receive the Spirit (Gal 3:14). The principle of inheritance is promise, not the Law (v 18). Those who believe are brought into union with Christ (vv 27-29); but then they are not merely Abraham’s children but God’s (v 26), for Christ is the Son of God and God has determined to send the Spirit of his Son to believers so that they too may call God <em>Father<\/em> (Gal 4:4-7; see also Rom 8:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, Christ himself as the Son is the true heir (Mt 21:38; Mk 12:7; Lk 20:14); he has inherited a name above every name (Phil 2:9; Heb 1:4) and has been appointed heir of all things (Heb 1:2; see Ps 2:7-8; Mt 28:18). But by his grace, all who become his through faith are counted joint heirs with him (Rom 8:17).<\/p>\n<h5>God’s Inheritance<\/h5>\n<p>With a bold shift in the metaphor, the Scriptures speak of believers as God’s inheritance. In the beautiful “Song of Moses” the author speaks of God as the Israelites’ Father (Dt 32:6), who has taken special interest in their inheritance (v 8). Then we are told why God cares: “For the <span>Lord<\/span>’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance” (Dt 32:9, <span>niv<\/span>). This theme becomes very prominent throughout the OT (e.g., Dt 9:26-29; 1 Kgs 8:51-53; Pss 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; Is 19:25; Jer 10:16; Zec 2:12). Elsewhere, Israel is spoken of as God’s special possession (e.g., Ex 19:5; Dt 7:6).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians 1:14 “the redemption of the possession” refers to the final salvation of believers, who are God’s treasure. Further, “we have obtained an inheritance” (Eph 1:11) may well be translated, “we have been made an inheritance,” that is, been “chosen as God’s portion,” a view supported by verse 18. No more fundamental idea than this can be found in Scripture, and its essence is expressed by the words of the One who sits on the throne: “He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son” (Rv 21:7, <span>rsv<\/span>; see Lv 26:11-12; 2 Sm 7:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adoption; Birthright; Firstborn; Heir.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INHERITANCE Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times. Legal and Historical Aspect The Patriarchs We learn something of early-second-millennium BC practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. ...","summary_en":"INHERITANCE Legacy or bequest. Inheritance plays an unusually significant role in the Scriptures when it is used to convey theological truths. As we might expect, these theological applications reflect legal customs in force during OT and NT times. Legal and Historical Aspect The Patriarchs We learn something of early-second-millennium BC practices from the patriarchal stories in Genesis. For example, the narrative indicates that the firstborn could normally expect to receive the birthright. ...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22025,"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":23032,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Levitical Cities","title_en":"Levitical Cities","content_ro":"<h3>LEVITICAL CITIES<\/h3>\n<p>Special areas set aside for the tribe of Levi in place of a regular territorial inheritance (Nm 18:20-24; 26:62; Dt 10:9; 18:1-2; Jos 18:7). The Levites were allotted 48 cities, including the six cities of refuge (Nm 35:6-7). Each town and a limited zone around it was for the Levites (vv 3-5); their property enjoyed a special status with regard to the laws of redemption (Lv 25:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Two lists of the Levitical cities are given (Jos 21; 1 Chr 6:54-81). Thirteen towns were for the priests (Jos 21:4), including the six cities of refuge. In spite of some variation between the two lists, it seems clear that they go back to one original. The distribution of the Levitical towns tells much about their purpose. They were distributed among the 12 tribes but not usually placed at the tribal centers. Those in Judah and Simeon were actually in the southern hill country, the area where the satellite clans of the Calebites and the Kenizzites had settled. Those in Benjamin were grouped along the southern half of that tribe’s inheritance, the part later attached to Judah; the family of Saul was located there. Levitical towns were placed in border areas where garrisons were required—for example, on the eastern desert fringes in Reuben and facing Philistia in Dan. Other key territories were in the plains where Asher, Manasseh, and other Galilean tribes had originally failed to conquer the Canaanite cities (Jgs 1:27, 31). Thus, the Levites were assigned places where the special task of controlling strategic areas was necessary. Many of the towns were not taken during the initial conquest and only came under Israelite control in the reign of David.<\/p>\n<p>Though the Levites were not the exclusive residents of any one city (they shared them with other Israelites), they were posted there for specific duties. They tended to the work of the Lord and the service of the king (1 Chr 26:30-32). Collecting tithes (Nm 18:21; Dt 14:28), handling legal and judicial matters (1 Chr 26:29; 2 Chr 17:8; 19:8-10), military garrison duties (1 Chr 26:1-19), and managing the storehouses (v 22) were all Levitical responsibilities. Though they served by rotation in the capital (27:1), they also had similar duties the year round in their home districts (26:29-32). Their loyalty to the house of David caused them to lose their status in the northern kingdom, so most of them joined Judah when the kingdom was split (2 Chr 11:13-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEVITICAL CITIES<\/h3>\n<p>Special areas set aside for the tribe of Levi in place of a regular territorial inheritance (Nm 18:20-24; 26:62; Dt 10:9; 18:1-2; Jos 18:7). The Levites were allotted 48 cities, including the six cities of refuge (Nm 35:6-7). Each town and a limited zone around it was for the Levites (vv 3-5); their property enjoyed a special status with regard to the laws of redemption (Lv 25:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Two lists of the Levitical cities are given (Jos 21; 1 Chr 6:54-81). Thirteen towns were for the priests (Jos 21:4), including the six cities of refuge. In spite of some variation between the two lists, it seems clear that they go back to one original. The distribution of the Levitical towns tells much about their purpose. They were distributed among the 12 tribes but not usually placed at the tribal centers. Those in Judah and Simeon were actually in the southern hill country, the area where the satellite clans of the Calebites and the Kenizzites had settled. Those in Benjamin were grouped along the southern half of that tribe’s inheritance, the part later attached to Judah; the family of Saul was located there. Levitical towns were placed in border areas where garrisons were required—for example, on the eastern desert fringes in Reuben and facing Philistia in Dan. Other key territories were in the plains where Asher, Manasseh, and other Galilean tribes had originally failed to conquer the Canaanite cities (Jgs 1:27, 31). Thus, the Levites were assigned places where the special task of controlling strategic areas was necessary. Many of the towns were not taken during the initial conquest and only came under Israelite control in the reign of David.<\/p>\n<p>Though the Levites were not the exclusive residents of any one city (they shared them with other Israelites), they were posted there for specific duties. They tended to the work of the Lord and the service of the king (1 Chr 26:30-32). Collecting tithes (Nm 18:21; Dt 14:28), handling legal and judicial matters (1 Chr 26:29; 2 Chr 17:8; 19:8-10), military garrison duties (1 Chr 26:1-19), and managing the storehouses (v 22) were all Levitical responsibilities. Though they served by rotation in the capital (27:1), they also had similar duties the year round in their home districts (26:29-32). Their loyalty to the house of David caused them to lose their status in the northern kingdom, so most of them joined Judah when the kingdom was split (2 Chr 11:13-14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cities of Refuge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEVITICAL CITIES Special areas set aside for the tribe of Levi in place of a regular territorial inheritance (Nm 18:20-24; 26:62; Dt 10:9; 18:1-2; Jos 18:7). The Levites were allotted 48 cities, including the six cities of refuge (Nm 35:6-7). Each town and a limited zone around it was for the Levites (vv 3-5); their property enjoyed a special status with regard to the laws of redemption (Lv 25:32-34). Two lists of the Levitical cities are given (Jos 21; 1 Chr 6:54-81). Thirteen towns were for...","summary_en":"LEVITICAL CITIES Special areas set aside for the tribe of Levi in place of a regular territorial inheritance (Nm 18:20-24; 26:62; Dt 10:9; 18:1-2; Jos 18:7). The Levites were allotted 48 cities, including the six cities of refuge (Nm 35:6-7). Each town and a limited zone around it was for the Levites (vv 3-5); their property enjoyed a special status with regard to the laws of redemption (Lv 25:32-34). Two lists of the Levitical cities are given (Jos 21; 1 Chr 6:54-81). Thirteen towns were for...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31309,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priests and Levites","title_en":"Priests and Levites","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","summary_en":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45074,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","summary_en":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72700,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","summary_en":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100326,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","summary_en":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127952,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:1","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:1<\/strong> The term <em>Levitical priests<\/em> described the entire <em>tribe of Levi<\/em>. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","summary_en":"18:1 The term Levitical priests described the entire tribe of Levi. Technically, however, only Aaron’s descendants were priests. The non-priestly Levites were their assistants (see 12:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":45075,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","summary_en":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72701,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","summary_en":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100327,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","summary_en":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127953,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:2","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:2<\/strong> <em>The<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em> himself is their special possession:<\/em> The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","summary_en":"18:2 The Lord himself is their special possession: The allotment of the Levites was spiritual, not territorial or material. They possessed the Lord by giving their whole lives to his service. This idea is a remarkable inverse of the idea that Israel was the Lord’s possession (see 7:6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":45076,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","summary_en":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72702,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","summary_en":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100328,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","summary_en":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127954,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:3<\/strong> In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, <em>the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach<\/em> of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","summary_en":"18:3 In the dietary fare of ancient Israel, the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach of oxen and sheep were the choice cuts. God’s priestly servants were to be honored by receiving the very best (see Lev 7:28-34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":12128,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","title_en":"Feasts and Festivals of Israel","content_ro":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL<\/h3>\n<p>Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion.<\/p>\n\n<p>In contemporary usage “festival” usually refers to activities extending over a period of time, while “feast” indicates one part of the celebration, often a meal. However, in religious usage, both ancient and modern, the two words are used interchangeably. The ancient Hebrews employed the words <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mo’ed<\/span> (“seasons”) and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span> for their great public celebrations, while feasts of a more private nature were commonly described by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mishteh<\/span><em>.<\/em> The majority of English translations of Scripture do not differentiate between these words.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FeastsandTheirFunctions\">Feasts and Their Functions<\/p>\n<p>Each festival places great emphasis on community participation and on the continuity of social or religious tradition, especially where the celebrations are elements of a regular civil or religious calendar. Without community backing, even in a family celebration, no festival can be successful. When there is communal participation, a festival can reinforce the individual and community memory of specific occasions, and can perpetuate that store of recollection over years and generations. Such shared memory has a cohesive effect upon a cooperating community, large or small, and serves to establish the traditions by which the group lives. If the festival commemorates a particular event or celebrates some lofty ideal, that theme becomes more firmly embedded in the minds of the participants by being associated repeatedly with the rites and ceremonies performed. The feasts of the ancient Hebrews had this positive function. The great festivals of their religious calendar commemorated specific occasions when God had reached out in power to intervene for his people or had provided for them in their distress. By celebrating these feasts on a regular basis, the Hebrews continually affirmed that their God had directed their destiny. Their repeated rehearsal of God’s help and love for them reminded them that he was still able to sustain them. Especially in times of hardship, it pointed to the reality of God’s presence and activity among them. Faith sustained by this means furnished an invaluable spiritual dimension to the life of the nation and provided a sense of continuity under divine provision and guidance. Only when corrupt or pagan elements were introduced into festive occasions did this important ingredient of national life begin to lose its vitality.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentFestivals\">Old Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<h5>General Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>These occasions were surprisingly numerous in Israel, considering the rather austere mode of life reflected in much of the OT. No doubt such celebrations offset or compensated for the hardships and insecurities of existence in the ancient Near East, and the Israelites made the most of every opportunity. A wedding was one of the most obvious occasions for celebration, and it is not surprising that a feast was prepared for the marriage of Rachel and Jacob (Gn 29:22) in which the whole neighborhood participated. Just how long this particular feast lasted is unknown, but some marriage festivals continued for a week, as in the case of the marriage between Samson and the woman of Timnah (Jgs 14:17). Wine that makes glad man’s heart (Ps 104:15) was consumed freely on such occasions.<\/p>\n<p>Birthdays were often observed in a festive spirit, especially where a royal person was concerned (Gn 40:20). Solomon’s dream was commemorated with a feast provided for his servants (1 Kgs 3:15), and when the temple was dedicated, the occasion was celebrated for a full week (8:65). Kings and queens held feasts periodically to mark certain occasions or to express goodwill (cf. Est 1:3; 2:18; 5:4, 14; 7:2, 7; Dn 5:1). Herdsmen traditionally made a feast for the shearing of the first sheep (Dt 18:4).<\/p>\n<h5>Preexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>In addition to the general festivals, which were frequently of a secular nature, communal feasts were prescribed for the Israelites that had a specifically spiritual significance. They were meant to emphasize the activity of God on behalf of his people and to remind them that continued divine blessing depended upon their obedience to his will. The catalog of festivals in Leviticus 23:2 began with an injunction to observe the Sabbath. The seventh day, in which God ceased from creating (Gn 2:3), was holy, though it is difficult to determine the extent to which it was kept until the time of Moses (Ex 20:8-11). From that time on, Sabbath observance stressed refraining from all work so as to commemorate properly God’s own rest from creative activity (31:17) and his deliverance of his people from bondage in Egypt (Dt 5:12-15). Sabbath celebration was the sign of a special relationship between God and the Israelites. During this 24-hour period, even trivial tasks like making a fire (Ex 35:3) or gathering wood (Nm 15:32-33) were prohibited on pain of death. Journeys of any distance also came under the Sabbath ban (Ex 16:29). Special offerings were part of the observance (Nm 28:9-10), and the bread of the Presence was replaced in the tabernacle (Lv 24:5-8). Despite the restrictions on activity, the Sabbath was meant to symbolize a time of happiness and security in the presence of God (cf. Is 58:13-14), since its observance would bring blessing to the individual and to the whole land.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the New Moon<\/h6>\n<p>The new moon was a monthly celebration based on the lunar calendar. It was especially appropriate for an agricultural people, since everyone could tell when the moon was new. Special offerings were prescribed for this festival, consisting of a burnt sacrifice, a grain offering, and a drink offering (Nm 28:11-15). In addition, a male goat was sacrificed to God as a sin offering, and trumpet blasts were sounded over the sacrificial offerings as a memorial before God (10:10). The sacrifices prescribed for the new moon festival were significantly greater than those required in Numbers 28:9-10 for the weekly Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>This lunar feast was popular throughout Israelite history. During the monarchy, the Levites were required to assist the Aaronic priests at the new moon festival, as well as on the Sabbath (1 Chr 23:29-31). The preexilic prophets may well have taken advantage of the large gatherings to give guidance to the people or proclaim prophetic oracles (cf. 2 Kgs 4:23), though to what extent this was done is uncertain. Not everyone found the period of rest and celebration valuable, however, and Amos (Am 8:5) complained about those avaricious Israelites who felt that such observances interfered with the business of making a living. The feast could not be observed when the Judeans were in exile in Babylonia (cf. Hos 2:11), but under Ezra and Nehemiah, its observance was restored (Neh 10:33). In Isaiah 66:22-23 it was related to Israel’s final destiny and was an accepted part of the ordinances for Ezekiel’s ideal temple (Ez 45:17).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the festival was to enhance the unity of national life by reminding the Israelites that God’s covenant with their ancestors was permanent and still binding upon the nation. It also stressed the loving nature and providence of a God who could begin such a relationship and carry out his promises with complete faithfulness (cf. Ps 104:19).<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Trumpets<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Trumpets was celebrated on the first day of the seventh new moon. This month, subsequently named Tishri, was especially holy, and for this reason was governed by certain regulations different from those of ordinary new moon festivals. The trumpets were blown on the first day (Lv 23:24) as the animal and cereal sacrifices were offered. From Numbers 29:2-6 it appears that the offerings required for this particular feast exceeded those prescribed for normal Sabbath sacrifice, but were somewhat less than those required for the regular new moon festival (cf. Nm 28:11). This feast was to be observed as a day of solemn rest and as a holy convocation, and the trumpets were sounded as a triumphant memorial to God’s great provision for his people through the Sinai covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The seventh month was particularly sacred, partly because of its place in the hallowed cycle of sevens, but also because the Day of Atonement (or Yom Kippur) and the Feast of Tabernacles, or Booths (Shelters), occurred during this period. The latter feast followed the Day of Atonement by some five days (Lv 23:33), and its joyful character served to offset somewhat the solemnity of the annual penitential occasion when the nation confessed its collective sins and saw them banished symbolically into the wilderness as the scapegoat was driven from the congregation.<\/p>\n<h6>The Sabbatical Year<\/h6>\n<p>Another festival closely connected with the institution of the Sabbath was the sabbatical year. At the end of each cycle of six years, the following 12 months were observed as a “sabbath of rest for the land.” During this interval, the ground was to lie fallow (Ex 23:11) without any form of cultivation, and whatever sprouted and grew from it naturally was assigned to the poor and needy (Lv 25:6). This provision for the land itself constituted one of the most important ecological principles of Scripture. Like God’s people, the land was holy, and just as they needed to have regular intervals of rest from daily work in order to regain their energy and spiritual vitality through worship, so the ground needed to rest and recuperate from the strain of constant cultivation. The festival reminded the Israelites that the land on which they lived had been given to them by God in fulfillment of his covenant undertaking to provide richly for their physical needs (cf. Dt 8:7-10). To keep the Israelites from experiencing any shortages or other hardships during the Year of Sabbath, God promised that in the year immediately preceding the sabbatical period, the land would bear fruit to suffice for the next three years (Lv 25:21). This assurance was based upon the experience of the wilderness wanderings, when on the sixth day of the week sufficient manna appeared to last through the Sabbath (Ex 16:5).<\/p>\n<p>In this festival period, God’s absolute claim over the land was reaffirmed (cf. Lv 25:23), and the faith of the nation in God’s ability to provide for future needs was reinforced. The provisions that freed the land for a year from agricultural bondage were paralleled in the seventh year of rest by those requiring liberation of slaves and debtors. These underprivileged members of society were to be released from their obligations of servitude. As a result, men and women who had become slaves for one reason or another were given personal liberty (Ex 21:2-6), and under proclamation of the Lord’s release, the provisions applying to debt were rescinded (Dt 15:1-6). The sabbatical year seems to have been a regular part of preexilic Israelite life, although some abuses were noted in Jeremiah 34:8-22. There the prophet took advantage of the opportunity presented to instruct the people in the nature and purpose of the sabbatical year ordinance. He also warned the wayward Judeans that because they had disobeyed the commands of God in denying proper liberty to their slaves, they would have their own freedom taken away in a far more serious manner by being carried captive to Babylonia after seeing their land destroyed. The lesson was not lost upon those who returned from exile, for under the administration of Nehemiah, the Jews bound themselves by a covenant to observe the principle of the sabbatical year (Neh 10:31). This undertaking evidently took its impetus from the reading of the law of Moses at the Feast of Booths (Shelters), which coincidentally occurred at the beginning of the sabbatical year (Neh 8:13-18).<\/p>\n<h6>Jubilee<\/h6>\n<p>Still another feast based on the principle of the sabbath was the Year of Jubilee, or Pentecostal year (Lv 25:8-55; 27:17-24). As the sabbatical year was related to the concept of the seventh day, so the Pentecostal (50th) year marked the completion of a cycle of seven sabbatical years. The commencement of a jubilee year was proclaimed on the Day of Atonement throughout the land by means of trumpet blasts (Lv 25:9). The activities that took place during the Pentecostal year were similar to those prescribed for the sabbatical year. A special feature was that land that had been sold during the preceding 49 years was returned to its original owners, a procedure that sometimes involved financial adjustments. To prevent abuse of the process through opportunism or speculation, the Hebrews were instructed to deal fairly and honestly with one another in the fear of God, who was the real owner of the land (Lv 25:14-17). As with the sabbatical year, God promised to make provision before the jubilee year so that no one would suffer hardship. It was during the Year of Jubilee that those who were slaves in Hebrew households were given their liberty, so that everyone in the land would commence a new cycle of sabbatical years on the same footing, as free persons under God.<\/p>\n<h5>Seasonal Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>Three annual festivals that followed the seasons of the year rather than phases of the moon furnished important occasions for commemorating God’s power and provision in national life. These festivals were designated by the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hag<\/span><em>,<\/em> indicating a festival usually observed by some sort of pilgrimage. These three festivals were prescribed in Exodus 23:14-17 and Deuteronomy 16:16, and consisted of the Feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), and the Festival of Booths (Tabernacles). On these occasions, all the males of Israel were commanded to make pilgrimage to the sanctuary and celebrate these festivals (Ex 12:14). The Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were originally separate ordinances, but since the latter always followed immediately upon the Passover rite, they naturally blended into a single festival.<\/p>\n<h6>Passover<\/h6>\n<p>The Passover was of supreme theological significance for the Israelites, since it marked one of the most momentous acts of divine intervention in their history, the beginning of their deliverance from bondage in Egypt when, in the final plague, God destroyed the firstborn of the Egyptians but spared those Israelites whose homes had blood smeared on the doorposts (Ex 12:11-30). God commanded that the day was to be observed as a memorial feast (v 14), and the next Passover celebration occurred in the Sinai Desert (Nm 9:1-5). In the Hebrew calendar the Passover festival came in the first month, called Abib in Deuteronomy 16:1, but known after the exile as Nisan (cf. Neh 2:1). The Passover rite took place the 14th evening (Lv 23:5), and this was followed by a seven-day period during which nothing leavened was to be eaten. The principle for removing all leaven from bread was similar to that underlying the draining of blood from animal flesh. Both leaven and blood had quickening power and were to be kept separate as an offering to God. The first and seventh days of this period were marked by a holy assembly, during which the only work permitted was the preparation of food (Ex 12:16). This period when unleavened bread was eaten was described as a festival because it opened the seven-week period of grain harvest (Dt 16:9). During this feast, special burnt sacrifices were offered, followed with a sheaf of newly harvested barley at the Feast of Firstfruits. By NT times the festivals of Passover and Unleavened Bread were well-attended celebrations and were known as the “days of unleavened bread” (Lk 22:1; Acts 12:3). The theme of Israel’s deliverance from the power of Egypt by divine intervention assured the Israelites that God was always ready to act on behalf of a faithful and obedient covenant people. It also reminded them that they had once been slaves (Dt 16:12). In Israelite life the early Passover and Unleavened Bread observances were comparatively simple in character, but during the monarchy more elaborate Passover rituals came into use (cf. 2 Kgs 23:21-23; 2 Chr 35:1-19).<\/p>\n<h6>Pentecost<\/h6>\n<p>The second great festival, Pentecost (or Weeks) lasted one day only and was observed on the 50th day after the newly harvested barley sheaf had been waved before the Lord at the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Dt 16:9-12). The festival marked the end of the barley harvest and the beginning of the wheat harvest, the beginning of the period when firstfruits could be offered (cf. Ex 23:16; 34:22; Nm 28:26). The feast day was marked by the presentation of two wheat-flour loaves along with sacrifices of seven lambs, two rams, and a bull (Lv 23:15-20). Freewill gifts to God were presented to reflect gratitude for his blessings, and the entire occasion was one of communal rejoicing (Dt 16:10-11). Since Pentecost was essentially a harvest festival (Ex 23:16), the Israelites were called on to recognize that they depended entirely upon God for their material prosperity. In Deuteronomy 26, specific instructions were given for the ritual of presenting firstfruits from the harvest. It comprised a great confession of faith set within the framework of Israel’s history, and it recounted God’s deliverance of the nation from Egyptian oppression and his provision of a land that could amply supply the needs of his people.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of Tabernacles<\/h6>\n<p>This festival, known variously as the Feast of Booths, Tabernacles, Shelters (Lv 23:34; Dt 16:13), or Ingathering (Ex 34:22), was the third great occasion that all Hebrew males were required to observe annually. It began on the 15th day of the seventh month (Tishri), shortly after the observance of the Day of Atonement, which fell on the 10th day. The Feast of Booths lasted for one week and involved pilgrimage. It was associated initially with the end of the year (Ex 34:22), when the agricultural work had been completed. The first day was marked by a symbolic cessation from all activity, after which burnt offerings were presented to the Lord. The eighth day was also one on which the congregation of Israel abstained from manual work and again offered burnt sacrifices. Leviticus 23:39-43 furnished details for the rituals that gave the festival its special name of booths or shelters or tabernacles. The fruit of “goodly trees” was to be gathered on the first day of the feast, along with palm fronds, willow branches, and boughs from trees in full leaf. From these, rough shelters or booths were to be constructed in which the people lived for the week of the feast. Every seventh year the observances were marked by a public recital of the covenant provisions to which the Israelites under Moses had committed themselves, a procedure designed to keep fresh in their minds the obligations as well as the blessings of the covenant relationship. A particularly significant observance of the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the time of Ezra, when the Judean community returned from Babylon—a celebration of a kind unknown for centuries (Neh 8:13-18). From the context it appears that observance of the feast had lapsed during the monarchy. The feast at Shiloh where Hannah was mistaken for a drunken woman and the feast referred to in Judges 21:19 were evidently the Feast of Booths. In a prophetic vision in which he saw all nations coming to Jerusalem to observe the Festival of Booths, Zechariah warned that those who did not continue this tradition could expect hardship and shortages of food (Zec 14:16-19).<\/p>\n<h5>Postexilic Festivals<\/h5>\n<p>There are a few minor festivals that were created in the period after the Jews returned from exile; some of these festivals had their origin in specific historical occasions.<\/p>\n<h6>The Festival of Purim<\/h6>\n<p>The Festival of Purim, also known as the Festival of Lots, was a joyful occasion occurring on the 14th day of the 12th month (Adar). It celebrated the way in which Esther and Mordecai were used by God to deliver his people in the Persian Empire from extermination by Haman (Est 9:21, 24-28). The feast was observed on the 14th day of Adar by those living in villages, and on the 15th by the inhabitants of walled towns and cities. The explanation of the name of the festival is given in Esther 9:24-26, and its observance reminded the Hebrews of God’s ability to save them during a time of anti-Semitic activity in Persia. The deliverance memorialized in this festival has consoled the Jews on other occasions when they have suffered persecution. Traditionally the scroll of Esther was read aloud in the synagogue on the evening before the feast, and there was a great outcry, especially among the children present, whenever the names of the hated Haman and his sons were mentioned.<\/p>\n<h6>Festival of the Dedication of the Temple<\/h6>\n<p>Another joyous festival that lasted for eight days was the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (1 Macc 4:52-59; 2 Macc 10:6-8), familiar to modern readers as Hanukkah, or the Festival of Lights. The specific dedication that prompted the feast occurred in 164 <span>BC<\/span>, when Judas Maccabeus reconsecrated the temple in Jerusalem after it had been defiled by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The celebrations commenced on the 25th day of the ninth month (Kislev) and were marked at night by blazing lights and lanterns. The stories of brave opposition by the Maccabees to the crushing forces of paganism were recounted, and the feast was one of praise to God for his marvelous deliverance of the Jews during the Maccabean period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentFestivals\">New Testament Festivals<\/p>\n<p>In Christ’s time the Sabbath was observed rigorously and was the occasion for synagogue worship (cf. Lk 4:16; Acts 13:14; 18:4). Pharisaic law prohibited all work, and Jesus came into conflict with the authorities periodically for breaches of the Sabbath regulations (cf. Mt 12:1-4; Mk 3:1-5; Lk 13:10-17). In the primitive church, worship occurred on “the first day of the week” (i.e., Sunday) to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. The early Christians initially participated in Jewish ceremonies (cf. Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8). It was during the Feast of Pentecost, after Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the Spirit was poured out (Acts 2:1-4), fulfilling Joel 2:28-32 and commencing the history of the Christian church as such.<\/p>\n<p>The Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread were of great significance in the life of Christ (cf. Jn 4:45; 5:1; 6:4; 12:1-26), for the occasion was a very popular one in NT times (cf. 12:20). On the Passover, Pilate had instituted the custom of clemency to a prisoner nominated by the populace (Mt 27:15; Mk 15:6). Jesus participated actively in the Passover rituals (cf. Lk 2:42; Jn 2:13; 6:4). The Last Supper with his disciples occurred just prior to the Passover (Jn 13:1), when Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees (Lk 22:4-6). The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine at that Passover celebration (Mk 14:22-25) were related directly to Christ’s forthcoming death on the cross in a sacramental manner. Christ’s disciples were instructed to observe this rite as a memorial of his suffering and death for human sin (1 Cor 11:24-26) and as a proclamation of the power of the cross until the Lord returns in glory. Some scholars have suggested that Christ was actually hanging on the cross when the Passover lamb was being slaughtered, and if that chronology is correct, it would represent Jesus graphically as the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29, <span>rsv<\/span>). Jesus was also present once when the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated (7:10). In his day water was carried in procession from the pool of Siloam as an offering to God, and the ceremony most probably prompted Christ’s discourse on living water and eternal life (vv 37-39). On at least one occasion Jesus was in Jerusalem when the Festival of Lights occurred (Jn 10:22) and narrowly missed death by stoning.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus was entertained occasionally at private feasts (cf. Lk 5:29), and once remedied an emergency situation when the wine ran out at a wedding ceremony (Jn 2:8-10). He was critical of the Pharisees for securing the chief seats at feasts (Mt 23:6; Mk 12:39; Lk 20:46) and taught that festivals ought to benefit the poor (Lk 14:13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SymbolismofFeasts\">Symbolism of Feasts<\/p>\n<p>Many aspects of the ancient Hebrew feasts were interpreted symbolically in the early church. Paul regarded the earliest Hebrew Christians as the firstfruits of the Israel of God (Rom 11:16). In Romans 8:23, the Holy Spirit as possessed by Christians was regarded as only a token of what was to come, and as such was the firstfruit of the Spirit. Christians themselves were described in James 1:18 as the firstfruits of God’s creatures who were brought forth by the Word of Truth. The resurrection of Jesus was considered by Paul to be the firstfruits of those who slept (1 Cor 15:20, 23). In an allusion to OT festivals, Paul spoke of the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts as merely being a shadow of good things to come (Col 2:16-17). The Passover was used figuratively to emphasize that Christ our Passover Lamb had been sacrificed for us. Believers were urged to keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, and not with the old leaven of malice and evil (1 Cor 5:7-8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Offerings and Sacrifices; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","summary_en":"FEASTS AND FESTIVALS OF ISRAEL Occasions of public or private rejoicing to commemorate some significant event or personage. The element of celebration has a special meaning in the cycle of religious occasions and the rites and ceremonies associated with these particular days. While the idea of a feast commonly implies a banquet with plenteous food and drink, this element is not indispensable. Sometimes there is only a token amount, as in the celebration of Holy Communion. In contemporary usag...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":22798,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":29057,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Patrimony*","title_en":"Patrimony*","content_ro":"<h3>PATRIMONY*<\/h3>\n<p>Inheritance from a father or ancestor (Dt 18:8). <em>See<\/em> Heir; Inheritance.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PATRIMONY*<\/h3>\n<p>Inheritance from a father or ancestor (Dt 18:8). <em>See<\/em> Heir; Inheritance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PATRIMONY* Inheritance from a father or ancestor (Dt 18:8). See Heir; Inheritance.","summary_en":"PATRIMONY* Inheritance from a father or ancestor (Dt 18:8). See Heir; Inheritance.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45077,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","summary_en":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72703,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","summary_en":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100329,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","summary_en":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127955,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:8","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:8<\/strong> <em>support from his family:<\/em> Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","summary_en":"18:8 support from his family: Although Levites were in full-time ministry at the Tabernacle and (later) the Temple, they could still hold material assets of their own (see Num 35:1-8). The Levites were to be supported by the regular offerings designated for that purpose without having to forfeit any of their own assets.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":9601,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laws*, Dietary","title_en":"Laws*, Dietary","content_ro":"<h3>DIETARY LAWS*<\/h3>\n<p>Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>• Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>• The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>• After Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>• Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HolinessandDietaryLaw\">Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word for “holiness” is difficult to ascertain but most probably was “to cut,” or “to be separate,” or “to set apart.” The Lord told Israel, “You shall be holy to me; for I the <span>Lord<\/span> am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lv 20:26, <span>rsv<\/span>). God is the supreme example of holiness; he is the one uniquely separate in his character and being (Is 6:3). But God wanted his covenant people to be holy, too. One of the ways that God made the Israelites different from the other peoples of the world was by giving them dietary laws: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lv 11:44, <span>niv<\/span>). Keeping the dietary laws did not automatically make the people “holy” (i.e., separated to God); rather, it was one of the ways OT believers could show their gratitude to God for his deliverance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeforeMoses\">Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>From the Creation, God approved all varieties of fruit and vegetables as legitimate, clean food (Gn 1:29). After the fall of humanity, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals. At the time of Noah, God directed that additional specimens of clean animals be taken aboard the ark (7:2; 8:20). After the Flood, God prohibited the eating of blood because blood represented life (9:4). To commemorate the patriarch Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, Jacob’s descendants refrained from eating a certain hip muscle (32:32), though that was not a command from God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMosaicLaw\">The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>The primary revelation of the Lord’s dietary standards for Israel was given through Moses. Dietary laws are found among the ceremonial regulations received at Mt Sinai (Lv 11). Moses repeated many of those laws 39 years later, shortly before the people entered the Promised Land (Dt 14:3-21). The dietary laws concerned only animal products, except for the prohibition of wine to certain people (Lv 10:9; Nm 6:3-4; cf. Jgs 13:14; Jer 35:6).<\/p>\n<p>Five categories of living things were regulated for food. To be edible an animal had to have cloven (divided) hooves and had to chew its cud. According to Leviticus, that requirement ruled out camels, horses, rabbits, and pigs (Lv 11:2-8). Sea life had to have fins and scales (vv 9-12). Birds were edible if they were not predatory (vv 13-19); Moses went on to list 20 species specifically prohibited because they were birds of prey or scavengers. Winged insects were forbidden (vv 22-23) except for certain types of locusts and grasshoppers (food commonly eaten by desert nomads). Finally, “the animals that move about on the ground,” including reptiles and rodents (vv 29-31, <span>niv<\/span>), were ruled out.<\/p>\n<p>Further prohibitions were made about food that otherwise would have been considered clean. For example, nothing found already dead (Dt 14:21) or that had been torn by beasts (Lv 17:15) was to be eaten. Food could become defiled by contact with some other thing that was unclean, like a dead mouse that happened to fall into a food container (11:32-34). A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21). When clean animals were slaughtered, their blood was to be drained out (Lv 17:14). All pieces of fat (3:16; 7:23), especially a sheep’s fat tail (Ex 29:22; Lv 3:9), were restricted for use in sacrifices to the Lord. Through Moses the Lord reiterated the prohibition against eating blood (Lv 17:10; 19:26; Dt 12:16; 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Several reasons, stated in or inferred from Scripture, account for the dietary laws and apply to the Bible’s cleanness regulations in general. Some seem to be natural reasons; others may be symbolic or relational.<\/p>\n<h5>Hygiene<\/h5>\n<p>Some dietary laws, such as those against eating vermin or decomposing flesh, circumvented obvious health hazards and were given for the people’s protection. But hygiene alone cannot account for all the regulations; in fact, some foods that might have been acceptable from a hygienic viewpoint, such as rabbit or clams, were excluded.<\/p>\n<h5>Aversion<\/h5>\n<p>Worms and snakes are generally considered loathsome, whatever their actual food value. Such animals were not <em>kosher<\/em> (proper).<\/p>\n<h5>Relationship to Pagan Practice<\/h5>\n<p>Boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk has now been documented as a pagan rite among Moses’ contemporaries, the Canaanites. God’s people were not to imitate the practices of the peoples around them (Dt 18:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AfterMoses\">After Moses<\/p>\n<p>The dietary laws given at Mt Sinai continued to be recognized throughout Israel’s history. Before the birth of Samson, the child’s mother was warned, “Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean” (Jgs 13:4, <span>niv<\/span>). During the Philistine wars of the next century (c. 1041 <span>BC<\/span>), King Saul’s soldiers sinned by disregarding requirements about the proper draining of blood from animals (1 Sm 14:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Later, when the Israelites were exiled in heathen lands, they were faced with situations in which the selection of food and its preparation could render it unclean (Ez 4:12-14). Daniel’s refusal to be defiled by pagan delicacies at Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian court (605 <span>BC<\/span>) illustrated his loyalty to God (Dn 1:8).<\/p>\n<p>From the prophet Isaiah’s day (740 <span>BC<\/span>) onward, the most abhorrent food to the Israelites was the meat of swine (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17). In the Maccabean period the “abomination of desolation,” which the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus and his followers resisted to the death, included sacrifices of pigs on the temple altar in Jerusalem by the pagan ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:54, 62-63; 2 Macc 6:5; 7:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Symbolism\">Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>Certain food products were ruled out because of something they symbolized. God said not to eat blood: “Be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Dt 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>). Blood had a ritual function. It was used to make atonement on God’s altar and therefore was not to be eaten (Lv 17:11-12). The NT writers recognized the sacrificial blood of the OT as a “type” or foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:1, 4, 12; 1 Pt 1:18-19). A symbolic regard for maternal life may explain why one who came upon a bird’s nest was allowed to take the eggs or the young but had to leave the mother bird unharmed (Dt 22:6-7). The need to preserve a fragile desert ecosystem may also have been a factor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReactionsfromtheChurch\">Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p>At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9-16; 11:1-10). Later, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, <span>niv<\/span>) in order not to offend Jewish Christians. That was an application of the NT teaching of consideration for those with sensitive consciences. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. . . . But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:20, 23, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish dietary laws also have relevance to Christians because of certain OT promises. God promised, first to Abraham and, by reiteration or allusion, throughout the OT, that the Gentiles would be included in his covenant. By preserving the health of the Hebrew people, God was ensuring their continuation as a nation. According to the NT, the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles was achieved by Christ, a Jew. The nation through which Christ came was protected in order that God’s promise could be fulfilled. Thus, the dietary laws need not be seen as burdensome restrictions of the law; they were part of God’s way of working out his redemptive plan.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Leviticus, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIETARY LAWS*<\/h3>\n<p>Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>• Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>• The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>• After Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>• Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HolinessandDietaryLaw\">Holiness and Dietary Law<\/p>\n<p>Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Hebrew word for “holiness” is difficult to ascertain but most probably was “to cut,” or “to be separate,” or “to set apart.” The Lord told Israel, “You shall be holy to me; for I the <span>Lord<\/span> am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lv 20:26, <span>rsv<\/span>). God is the supreme example of holiness; he is the one uniquely separate in his character and being (Is 6:3). But God wanted his covenant people to be holy, too. One of the ways that God made the Israelites different from the other peoples of the world was by giving them dietary laws: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy” (Lv 11:44, <span>niv<\/span>). Keeping the dietary laws did not automatically make the people “holy” (i.e., separated to God); rather, it was one of the ways OT believers could show their gratitude to God for his deliverance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeforeMoses\">Before Moses<\/p>\n<p>From the Creation, God approved all varieties of fruit and vegetables as legitimate, clean food (Gn 1:29). After the fall of humanity, God distinguished between clean and unclean animals. At the time of Noah, God directed that additional specimens of clean animals be taken aboard the ark (7:2; 8:20). After the Flood, God prohibited the eating of blood because blood represented life (9:4). To commemorate the patriarch Jacob’s wrestling with the Angel of the Lord, Jacob’s descendants refrained from eating a certain hip muscle (32:32), though that was not a command from God.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMosaicLaw\">The Mosaic Law<\/p>\n<p>The primary revelation of the Lord’s dietary standards for Israel was given through Moses. Dietary laws are found among the ceremonial regulations received at Mt Sinai (Lv 11). Moses repeated many of those laws 39 years later, shortly before the people entered the Promised Land (Dt 14:3-21). The dietary laws concerned only animal products, except for the prohibition of wine to certain people (Lv 10:9; Nm 6:3-4; cf. Jgs 13:14; Jer 35:6).<\/p>\n<p>Five categories of living things were regulated for food. To be edible an animal had to have cloven (divided) hooves and had to chew its cud. According to Leviticus, that requirement ruled out camels, horses, rabbits, and pigs (Lv 11:2-8). Sea life had to have fins and scales (vv 9-12). Birds were edible if they were not predatory (vv 13-19); Moses went on to list 20 species specifically prohibited because they were birds of prey or scavengers. Winged insects were forbidden (vv 22-23) except for certain types of locusts and grasshoppers (food commonly eaten by desert nomads). Finally, “the animals that move about on the ground,” including reptiles and rodents (vv 29-31, <span>niv<\/span>), were ruled out.<\/p>\n<p>Further prohibitions were made about food that otherwise would have been considered clean. For example, nothing found already dead (Dt 14:21) or that had been torn by beasts (Lv 17:15) was to be eaten. Food could become defiled by contact with some other thing that was unclean, like a dead mouse that happened to fall into a food container (11:32-34). A young goat was not to be boiled in its mother’s milk (Ex 23:19; 34:26; Dt 14:21). When clean animals were slaughtered, their blood was to be drained out (Lv 17:14). All pieces of fat (3:16; 7:23), especially a sheep’s fat tail (Ex 29:22; Lv 3:9), were restricted for use in sacrifices to the Lord. Through Moses the Lord reiterated the prohibition against eating blood (Lv 17:10; 19:26; Dt 12:16; 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Several reasons, stated in or inferred from Scripture, account for the dietary laws and apply to the Bible’s cleanness regulations in general. Some seem to be natural reasons; others may be symbolic or relational.<\/p>\n<h5>Hygiene<\/h5>\n<p>Some dietary laws, such as those against eating vermin or decomposing flesh, circumvented obvious health hazards and were given for the people’s protection. But hygiene alone cannot account for all the regulations; in fact, some foods that might have been acceptable from a hygienic viewpoint, such as rabbit or clams, were excluded.<\/p>\n<h5>Aversion<\/h5>\n<p>Worms and snakes are generally considered loathsome, whatever their actual food value. Such animals were not <em>kosher<\/em> (proper).<\/p>\n<h5>Relationship to Pagan Practice<\/h5>\n<p>Boiling a young goat in its mother’s milk has now been documented as a pagan rite among Moses’ contemporaries, the Canaanites. God’s people were not to imitate the practices of the peoples around them (Dt 18:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AfterMoses\">After Moses<\/p>\n<p>The dietary laws given at Mt Sinai continued to be recognized throughout Israel’s history. Before the birth of Samson, the child’s mother was warned, “Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean” (Jgs 13:4, <span>niv<\/span>). During the Philistine wars of the next century (c. 1041 <span>BC<\/span>), King Saul’s soldiers sinned by disregarding requirements about the proper draining of blood from animals (1 Sm 14:32-34).<\/p>\n<p>Later, when the Israelites were exiled in heathen lands, they were faced with situations in which the selection of food and its preparation could render it unclean (Ez 4:12-14). Daniel’s refusal to be defiled by pagan delicacies at Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian court (605 <span>BC<\/span>) illustrated his loyalty to God (Dn 1:8).<\/p>\n<p>From the prophet Isaiah’s day (740 <span>BC<\/span>) onward, the most abhorrent food to the Israelites was the meat of swine (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17). In the Maccabean period the “abomination of desolation,” which the Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus and his followers resisted to the death, included sacrifices of pigs on the temple altar in Jerusalem by the pagan ruler Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:54, 62-63; 2 Macc 6:5; 7:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Symbolism\">Symbolism<\/p>\n<p>Certain food products were ruled out because of something they symbolized. God said not to eat blood: “Be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Dt 12:23, <span>rsv<\/span>). Blood had a ritual function. It was used to make atonement on God’s altar and therefore was not to be eaten (Lv 17:11-12). The NT writers recognized the sacrificial blood of the OT as a “type” or foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross as a sacrifice for sin (Heb 10:1, 4, 12; 1 Pt 1:18-19). A symbolic regard for maternal life may explain why one who came upon a bird’s nest was allowed to take the eggs or the young but had to leave the mother bird unharmed (Dt 22:6-7). The need to preserve a fragile desert ecosystem may also have been a factor.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReactionsfromtheChurch\">Reactions from the Church<\/p>\n<p>At first the early church, with its Jewish background, found it difficult to break away from Hebrew dietary traditions. The apostle Peter was given a vision, repeated three times, about no longer calling either non-Jewish food or the non-Jews who ate it “unclean” (Acts 10:9-16; 11:1-10). Later, a council at Jerusalem officially decided not to retain Moses’ ceremonialism in the church, except that gentile Christians should abstain “from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood” (Acts 15:20, <span>niv<\/span>) in order not to offend Jewish Christians. That was an application of the NT teaching of consideration for those with sensitive consciences. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. . . . But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Rom 14:20, 23, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish dietary laws also have relevance to Christians because of certain OT promises. God promised, first to Abraham and, by reiteration or allusion, throughout the OT, that the Gentiles would be included in his covenant. By preserving the health of the Hebrew people, God was ensuring their continuation as a nation. According to the NT, the salvation of both Jews and Gentiles was achieved by Christ, a Jew. The nation through which Christ came was protected in order that God’s promise could be fulfilled. Thus, the dietary laws need not be seen as burdensome restrictions of the law; they were part of God’s way of working out his redemptive plan.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Leviticus, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIETARY LAWS* Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people. Preview • Holiness and Dietary Law • Before Moses • The Mosaic Law • After Moses • Symbolism • Reactions from the Church Holiness and Dietary Law Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Heb...","summary_en":"DIETARY LAWS* Regulations of food preparation and consumption provided by God for his people in OT times. The dietary laws formed part of broader regulations on “cleanness” that were designed to maintain Israel’s status as a holy people. Preview • Holiness and Dietary Law • Before Moses • The Mosaic Law • After Moses • Symbolism • Reactions from the Church Holiness and Dietary Law Biblical laws concerning diet and cleanness were based on the idea of holiness. The underlying meaning of the Heb...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23893,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Magic","title_en":"Magic","content_ro":"<h3>MAGIC<\/h3>\n<p>Attempt to influence or control people or events through supernatural forces. These forces are called upon by means of ceremonies, the recitation of spells, charms, incantations, and other forms of ritual.<\/p>\n<p>There are a number of terms used in the Bible that might fall into the broad category of magic. Several of the words are mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:9-14. The use of magical and occult practices by Israel is not permitted. The people of God are instructed to avoid magical practices because God provides them with his personal revelation through his prophets. Human magical practices lead to either false hope or false fear and therefore lead away from the truth of God. Yet while magical practices cannot measure up to the accuracy of God’s prophet, the Bible does leave open the possibility that there may be supernatural reality behind some magical practices.<\/p>\n<p>Magicians are prominent in the OT book of Exodus, where the magicians of Egypt contend with Moses. The text does not discount the success of the magicians as mere trickery, for they were at least partially successful at first (chs 7–8). But their failures begin to become clear in chapter 8 and continue through chapter 9. The Bible does not flatly deny that there may be certain evil supernatural power at work in the person of the magician. What the Bible does make clear is that this power is not in accord with, nor can it defeat, the will of God.<\/p>\n<p>The NT addresses the issue of magic in the book of Acts. When Philip went to Samaria, he encountered Simon the magician. Simon had drawn a great deal of attention to himself by amazing the people with his magic (Acts 8:11). Philip’s message was believed and people began to be drawn to him. Simon saw the wonders that Philip was able to perform and thought that these powers were received through the ritual of the laying on of hands. Philip made clear that the wonders of his work could not be purchased but came through the gracious gift of God to the penitent.<\/p>\n<p>Another important passage is found in Acts 19:11-20. Certain Jewish exorcists thought they could magically use the name of Jesus in their work. The result was violent reaction: the man in whom resided the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. This passage shows that the power responsible for the apostolic miracles was based upon the personal relationship of the apostle with the Lord Jesus Christ. The result of the above incident is also important; it led the people of Ephesus to make a clear decision between the word of the Lord and their magical practices. Several who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the presence of everyone. This dramatic display of the power of God and the need for clear loyalty to him led to further expansion of the gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical stand against magic is stated strongly in the last book of the Bible, where sorcerers are condemned to the lake of fire (Rv 21:8). The biblical view is consistent in its opposition to magic. The Bible does not preclude the possibility that Satan can use magic for evil purposes, and magical practices are condemned because they may lead to false hope or false fear and away from loyalty to God’s Word.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Amulet; Canaanite Deities and Religion; Frontlet; Omen; Soothsayer; Sorcery; Psychics.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MAGIC<\/h3>\n<p>Attempt to influence or control people or events through supernatural forces. These forces are called upon by means of ceremonies, the recitation of spells, charms, incantations, and other forms of ritual.<\/p>\n<p>There are a number of terms used in the Bible that might fall into the broad category of magic. Several of the words are mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:9-14. The use of magical and occult practices by Israel is not permitted. The people of God are instructed to avoid magical practices because God provides them with his personal revelation through his prophets. Human magical practices lead to either false hope or false fear and therefore lead away from the truth of God. Yet while magical practices cannot measure up to the accuracy of God’s prophet, the Bible does leave open the possibility that there may be supernatural reality behind some magical practices.<\/p>\n<p>Magicians are prominent in the OT book of Exodus, where the magicians of Egypt contend with Moses. The text does not discount the success of the magicians as mere trickery, for they were at least partially successful at first (chs 7–8). But their failures begin to become clear in chapter 8 and continue through chapter 9. The Bible does not flatly deny that there may be certain evil supernatural power at work in the person of the magician. What the Bible does make clear is that this power is not in accord with, nor can it defeat, the will of God.<\/p>\n<p>The NT addresses the issue of magic in the book of Acts. When Philip went to Samaria, he encountered Simon the magician. Simon had drawn a great deal of attention to himself by amazing the people with his magic (Acts 8:11). Philip’s message was believed and people began to be drawn to him. Simon saw the wonders that Philip was able to perform and thought that these powers were received through the ritual of the laying on of hands. Philip made clear that the wonders of his work could not be purchased but came through the gracious gift of God to the penitent.<\/p>\n<p>Another important passage is found in Acts 19:11-20. Certain Jewish exorcists thought they could magically use the name of Jesus in their work. The result was violent reaction: the man in whom resided the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. This passage shows that the power responsible for the apostolic miracles was based upon the personal relationship of the apostle with the Lord Jesus Christ. The result of the above incident is also important; it led the people of Ephesus to make a clear decision between the word of the Lord and their magical practices. Several who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the presence of everyone. This dramatic display of the power of God and the need for clear loyalty to him led to further expansion of the gospel.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical stand against magic is stated strongly in the last book of the Bible, where sorcerers are condemned to the lake of fire (Rv 21:8). The biblical view is consistent in its opposition to magic. The Bible does not preclude the possibility that Satan can use magic for evil purposes, and magical practices are condemned because they may lead to false hope or false fear and away from loyalty to God’s Word.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Amulet; Canaanite Deities and Religion; Frontlet; Omen; Soothsayer; Sorcery; Psychics.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MAGIC Attempt to influence or control people or events through supernatural forces. These forces are called upon by means of ceremonies, the recitation of spells, charms, incantations, and other forms of ritual. There are a number of terms used in the Bible that might fall into the broad category of magic. Several of the words are mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:9-14. The use of magical and occult practices by Israel is not permitted. The people of God are instructed to avoid magical practices be...","summary_en":"MAGIC Attempt to influence or control people or events through supernatural forces. These forces are called upon by means of ceremonies, the recitation of spells, charms, incantations, and other forms of ritual. There are a number of terms used in the Bible that might fall into the broad category of magic. Several of the words are mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:9-14. The use of magical and occult practices by Israel is not permitted. The people of God are instructed to avoid magical practices be...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31706,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34952,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sheol*","title_en":"Sheol*","content_ro":"<h3>SHEOL*<\/h3>\n<p>Hebrew term for the place of the dead. In ordinary usage it means “ravine,” “chasm,” “underworld,” or “world of the dead.” In the OT it is the place where the dead have their abode, a hollow space underneath the earth where the dead are gathered in. Synonyms for Sheol are “pit,” “death,” and “destruction” (Abaddon). Sheol is a place of shadows and utter silence. Here all existence is in suspense, yet it is not a nonplace, but rather a place where life is no more. It is described as the Land of Forgetfulness. Those who dwell there cannot praise God (Ps 88:10-12). In Revelation it is called the “bottomless pit” presided over by Abaddon, the prince of the pit (Rv 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>It is not, however, a place where God is entirely absent; there can be no escape from God even in Sheol (Ps 139:8). This omnipresence of God is graphically described in Job: “Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering” (Jb 26:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). A similar thought is expressed in Proverbs: “Sheol and Abaddon lie open before the <span>Lord<\/span>, how much more the hearts of men!” (Prv 15:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In both texts Sheol and Abaddon are used interchangeably. Abaddon means literally “destruction,” but in Revelation it is used as a personal name.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, death is not a natural occurrence. It violates the principle of life, which is a gift from God. Sheol is therefore not only a place of rest but also of punishment. Korah and his associates who instigated rebellion against Moses were swallowed up by the open pit and perished in Sheol (Nm 16:30-33). Fear of death is natural to man; Sheol therefore serves as a symbol of the journey without return (Ps 39:12-13). King Hezekiah of Judah laments on his sickbed: “In the noontide of my days I must depart; I am consigned to the gates of Sheol for the rest of my years” (Is 38:10, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Sheol, as conceived in the OT, differs from the later doctrine of hell or Hades in that it is the place where all the dead are gathered indiscriminately, both the good and the bad, the saints and the sinners. To die means to be joined to those who have gone before. When a Jew dies, he is “gathered unto his people” (cf. Gn 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29). Beyond Sheol there seemed to be no hope (cf. Eccl 9:10). The utter despondency of death is expressed pathetically in the book of Job: “I go whence I shall not return, to the land of gloom and deep darkness, the land of gloom and chaos, where light is as darkness” (Jb 10:21-22, <span>rsv<\/span>). Yet this is not Job’s last word. He also knows of the power of God, which reaches beyond the grave: “For I know that my Redeemer lives . . . ; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God” (19:25-26, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The idea that the dead abide in the underworld persists in the OT. The incident in the case of Saul with the medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:11) is a good illustration. Samuel is brought “up out of the earth” to be consulted by the king at a time of crisis. Such necromancy was strictly prohibited both by the law of Moses (Dt 18:9-11) and by the king himself (cf. 1 Sm 28:3, 9). Apparently, those in the underworld, though separated from the living, were thought to be familiar with the affairs of men.<\/p>\n<p>Sheol is roughly equivalent to the Greek word often found in the NT, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hades<\/span><em>,<\/em> as that which also describes the place of the dead.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Death; Hades; Hell; Intermediate State.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEOL*<\/h3>\n<p>Hebrew term for the place of the dead. In ordinary usage it means “ravine,” “chasm,” “underworld,” or “world of the dead.” In the OT it is the place where the dead have their abode, a hollow space underneath the earth where the dead are gathered in. Synonyms for Sheol are “pit,” “death,” and “destruction” (Abaddon). Sheol is a place of shadows and utter silence. Here all existence is in suspense, yet it is not a nonplace, but rather a place where life is no more. It is described as the Land of Forgetfulness. Those who dwell there cannot praise God (Ps 88:10-12). In Revelation it is called the “bottomless pit” presided over by Abaddon, the prince of the pit (Rv 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>It is not, however, a place where God is entirely absent; there can be no escape from God even in Sheol (Ps 139:8). This omnipresence of God is graphically described in Job: “Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering” (Jb 26:6, <span>rsv<\/span>). A similar thought is expressed in Proverbs: “Sheol and Abaddon lie open before the <span>Lord<\/span>, how much more the hearts of men!” (Prv 15:11, <span>rsv<\/span>). In both texts Sheol and Abaddon are used interchangeably. Abaddon means literally “destruction,” but in Revelation it is used as a personal name.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, death is not a natural occurrence. It violates the principle of life, which is a gift from God. Sheol is therefore not only a place of rest but also of punishment. Korah and his associates who instigated rebellion against Moses were swallowed up by the open pit and perished in Sheol (Nm 16:30-33). Fear of death is natural to man; Sheol therefore serves as a symbol of the journey without return (Ps 39:12-13). King Hezekiah of Judah laments on his sickbed: “In the noontide of my days I must depart; I am consigned to the gates of Sheol for the rest of my years” (Is 38:10, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Sheol, as conceived in the OT, differs from the later doctrine of hell or Hades in that it is the place where all the dead are gathered indiscriminately, both the good and the bad, the saints and the sinners. To die means to be joined to those who have gone before. When a Jew dies, he is “gathered unto his people” (cf. Gn 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29). Beyond Sheol there seemed to be no hope (cf. Eccl 9:10). The utter despondency of death is expressed pathetically in the book of Job: “I go whence I shall not return, to the land of gloom and deep darkness, the land of gloom and chaos, where light is as darkness” (Jb 10:21-22, <span>rsv<\/span>). Yet this is not Job’s last word. He also knows of the power of God, which reaches beyond the grave: “For I know that my Redeemer lives . . . ; and after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God” (19:25-26, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The idea that the dead abide in the underworld persists in the OT. The incident in the case of Saul with the medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:11) is a good illustration. Samuel is brought “up out of the earth” to be consulted by the king at a time of crisis. Such necromancy was strictly prohibited both by the law of Moses (Dt 18:9-11) and by the king himself (cf. 1 Sm 28:3, 9). Apparently, those in the underworld, though separated from the living, were thought to be familiar with the affairs of men.<\/p>\n<p>Sheol is roughly equivalent to the Greek word often found in the NT, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hades<\/span><em>,<\/em> as that which also describes the place of the dead.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dead, Place of the; Death; Hades; Hell; Intermediate State.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEOL* Hebrew term for the place of the dead. In ordinary usage it means “ravine,” “chasm,” “underworld,” or “world of the dead.” In the OT it is the place where the dead have their abode, a hollow space underneath the earth where the dead are gathered in. Synonyms for Sheol are “pit,” “death,” and “destruction” (Abaddon). Sheol is a place of shadows and utter silence. Here all existence is in suspense, yet it is not a nonplace, but rather a place where life is no more. It is described as the...","summary_en":"SHEOL* Hebrew term for the place of the dead. In ordinary usage it means “ravine,” “chasm,” “underworld,” or “world of the dead.” In the OT it is the place where the dead have their abode, a hollow space underneath the earth where the dead are gathered in. Synonyms for Sheol are “pit,” “death,” and “destruction” (Abaddon). Sheol is a place of shadows and utter silence. Here all existence is in suspense, yet it is not a nonplace, but rather a place where life is no more. It is described as the...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61238,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Calling up the Dead","title_en":"Calling up the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","summary_ro":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","summary_en":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88864,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Calling up the Dead","title_en":"Calling up the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","summary_ro":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","summary_en":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116490,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Calling up the Dead","title_en":"Calling up the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","summary_ro":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","summary_en":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144116,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Calling up the Dead","title_en":"Calling up the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Calling up the Dead<\/h3>\n<p>The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance.<\/p>\n<p>God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Moses’ grave a shrine, present offerings to his spirit, worship him, or attempt to consult his spirit. They may have been prone to these sorts of practices because of their time in Egypt and because of Moses’ stature and his role in mediating Israel’s covenant with God.<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament makes it plain that the dead cannot be contacted (cp. 2 Sam 12:23; Job 14:10-12; Pss 88:10; 115:17). Samuel is the only known exception; God apparently commanded him to return and speak (see 1 Sam 28:12-19). Saul’s sin in consulting a medium was so severe that the Chronicler singles out this failure in commenting on Saul’s downfall (see 1 Chr 10:13-14). There is never any justification for seeking advice from the dead when we have the living word of God to guide us (2 Tim 3:15-17; Heb 4:12-13).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Lev 19:31; 20:6-8, 27; Deut 18:9-12; 1 Sam 28:1-25; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 1 Chr 10:13-14; Job 14:10-12; Isa 3:1-3; 8:19-22<\/p>","summary_ro":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","summary_en":"Calling up the Dead The Old Testament forbids occult practices, such as spiritism, divination, and necromancy, in which someone attempts to contact the dead, usually to seek guidance about the future (see Deut 18:9-12). Practicing necromancy and consulting a necromancer were capital offenses (Lev 20:6, 27; cp. 1 Sam 28:9). God’s people were instead to rely on God for divine guidance. God buried Moses in an unmarked grave (Deut 34:6), possibly because he did not want the Israelites to make Mos...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":3511,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Balaam","title_en":"Balaam","content_ro":"<h3>BALAAM<\/h3>\n<p>Beor’s son, a prophet or soothsayer from northern Mesopotamia who was hired by a Moabite king, Balak, to curse the Israelites who had arrived at the Jordan Valley opposite Jericho after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Israel’s defeat of the Amorites (Nm 21:21-25) had instilled fear in the heart of the Moabite king (22:3). Because curses and blessings were considered irrevocable (Gn 27:34-38), Balak reasoned that if he could hire a prophet to curse the Israelites in the name of their own God, Yahweh, he could easily defeat them in battle and drive them away from his borders. Balak sent messengers to Pethor, where Balaam lived. The town is believed to be located near Haran along the Habur River, a tributary of the Euphrates. Balak offered Balaam an impressive sum to come down and curse the Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Balaam, however, was warned by the Lord that he should not go to Moab. The king of Moab would not accept Balaam’s refusal and sent his royal messengers back with offers of greater wealth and honor. Balaam revealed an inner lust for wealth and position by returning to the Lord to ask whether he should go. His words to the messengers, however, were very pious: “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the <span>Lord<\/span> my God, to do less or more” (Nm 22:18, <span>rsv<\/span>). Although Balaam would do only what the Lord allowed, he became a prime example of someone who does the right thing for the wrong reason.<\/p>\n<p>Balak had sent along with his messengers “the fees for divination” (Nm 22:7, <span>rsv<\/span>), which shows that he considered Balaam a diviner of the type pagan nations commonly used. The Israelites were forbidden by the Lord to consult diviners or practice divination (Dt 18:10-11). A true prophet would not have even considered the possibility that serving Balak might be right. God’s final permission to let Balaam go, with the stipulation that he say only what God told him, was the Lord’s way of frustrating Balak’s cause and showing God’s care for his chosen people.<\/p>\n\n<p>Although he gave his permission, God was angry that Balaam went (Nm 22:22). So the Lord placed an angel with a drawn sword in Balaam’s path. His donkey could see the angel but Balaam could not. Not knowing why the donkey balked, Balaam beat her, and she was then miraculously given a voice to complain against his cruelty (vv 28-30).<\/p>\n<p>On the surface the story in Numbers 22 presents Balaam as a man who simply did what the Lord allowed him to do. But Deuteronomy 23:5 states that the Lord would not listen to Balaam and turned his intended curse into a blessing. When the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, he saw the angel and fell flat on his face (Nm 22:31). Then he acknowledged his sin and proceeded to say only what the Lord put in his mouth. Balaam’s poems in Numbers 23 and 24 are in an archaic form of Hebrew that witnesses to their authenticity. They sometimes describe God’s past blessing on his people, and at other points predict his future blessing of Israel in a unique way.<\/p>\n<p>Only blessings on Israel and never a single word of a curse were spoken by Balaam. The infuriated Moabite king took Balaam from one vantage point to another where they could look out over the Jordan Valley and see the Israelite encampment. When Balaam still did not curse them, Balak slapped his hands together in anger and packed the prophet off without any reward at all. But that was by no means the end of Balak’s attempt to weaken Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 25 tells how the Moabite king almost succeeded in turning the Israelites against the Lord. It describes a scene at Peor where Israelite men engaged in debauchery with Moabite women. That may have meant participation in the common heathen practice of temple prostitution, for according to Numbers 31:14-16, that had been Balaam’s advice to Balak and the Moabites on how to weaken Israel. Later Balaam was killed by the Israelites in their campaign against Midian (Nm 31:8; Jos 13:22).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Balak.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BALAAM<\/h3>\n<p>Beor’s son, a prophet or soothsayer from northern Mesopotamia who was hired by a Moabite king, Balak, to curse the Israelites who had arrived at the Jordan Valley opposite Jericho after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Israel’s defeat of the Amorites (Nm 21:21-25) had instilled fear in the heart of the Moabite king (22:3). Because curses and blessings were considered irrevocable (Gn 27:34-38), Balak reasoned that if he could hire a prophet to curse the Israelites in the name of their own God, Yahweh, he could easily defeat them in battle and drive them away from his borders. Balak sent messengers to Pethor, where Balaam lived. The town is believed to be located near Haran along the Habur River, a tributary of the Euphrates. Balak offered Balaam an impressive sum to come down and curse the Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Balaam, however, was warned by the Lord that he should not go to Moab. The king of Moab would not accept Balaam’s refusal and sent his royal messengers back with offers of greater wealth and honor. Balaam revealed an inner lust for wealth and position by returning to the Lord to ask whether he should go. His words to the messengers, however, were very pious: “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the <span>Lord<\/span> my God, to do less or more” (Nm 22:18, <span>rsv<\/span>). Although Balaam would do only what the Lord allowed, he became a prime example of someone who does the right thing for the wrong reason.<\/p>\n<p>Balak had sent along with his messengers “the fees for divination” (Nm 22:7, <span>rsv<\/span>), which shows that he considered Balaam a diviner of the type pagan nations commonly used. The Israelites were forbidden by the Lord to consult diviners or practice divination (Dt 18:10-11). A true prophet would not have even considered the possibility that serving Balak might be right. God’s final permission to let Balaam go, with the stipulation that he say only what God told him, was the Lord’s way of frustrating Balak’s cause and showing God’s care for his chosen people.<\/p>\n\n<p>Although he gave his permission, God was angry that Balaam went (Nm 22:22). So the Lord placed an angel with a drawn sword in Balaam’s path. His donkey could see the angel but Balaam could not. Not knowing why the donkey balked, Balaam beat her, and she was then miraculously given a voice to complain against his cruelty (vv 28-30).<\/p>\n<p>On the surface the story in Numbers 22 presents Balaam as a man who simply did what the Lord allowed him to do. But Deuteronomy 23:5 states that the Lord would not listen to Balaam and turned his intended curse into a blessing. When the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, he saw the angel and fell flat on his face (Nm 22:31). Then he acknowledged his sin and proceeded to say only what the Lord put in his mouth. Balaam’s poems in Numbers 23 and 24 are in an archaic form of Hebrew that witnesses to their authenticity. They sometimes describe God’s past blessing on his people, and at other points predict his future blessing of Israel in a unique way.<\/p>\n<p>Only blessings on Israel and never a single word of a curse were spoken by Balaam. The infuriated Moabite king took Balaam from one vantage point to another where they could look out over the Jordan Valley and see the Israelite encampment. When Balaam still did not curse them, Balak slapped his hands together in anger and packed the prophet off without any reward at all. But that was by no means the end of Balak’s attempt to weaken Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Numbers 25 tells how the Moabite king almost succeeded in turning the Israelites against the Lord. It describes a scene at Peor where Israelite men engaged in debauchery with Moabite women. That may have meant participation in the common heathen practice of temple prostitution, for according to Numbers 31:14-16, that had been Balaam’s advice to Balak and the Moabites on how to weaken Israel. Later Balaam was killed by the Israelites in their campaign against Midian (Nm 31:8; Jos 13:22).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Balak.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BALAAM Beor’s son, a prophet or soothsayer from northern Mesopotamia who was hired by a Moabite king, Balak, to curse the Israelites who had arrived at the Jordan Valley opposite Jericho after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Israel’s defeat of the Amorites (Nm 21:21-25) had instilled fear in the heart of the Moabite king (22:3). Because curses and blessings were considered irrevocable (Gn 27:34-38), Balak reasoned that if he could hire a prophet to curse the Israelites in the name of...","summary_en":"BALAAM Beor’s son, a prophet or soothsayer from northern Mesopotamia who was hired by a Moabite king, Balak, to curse the Israelites who had arrived at the Jordan Valley opposite Jericho after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Israel’s defeat of the Amorites (Nm 21:21-25) had instilled fear in the heart of the Moabite king (22:3). Because curses and blessings were considered irrevocable (Gn 27:34-38), Balak reasoned that if he could hire a prophet to curse the Israelites in the name of...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28442,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Omen","title_en":"Omen","content_ro":"<h3>OMEN<\/h3>\n<p>Natural sign or occurrence prefiguring the outcome of a future event. Augury was listed among the abominable pagan practices forbidden to Israel (Dt 18:10). Balaam, upon seeing that the Lord was pleased with his blessings on Israel, did not seek omens as he normally did (Nm 24:1). The men of Syria looked for an omen to see if King Ahab of Israel (874–853 <span>BC<\/span>) would be favorably disposed to release the Syrian king Ben-hadad from captivity (1 Kgs 20:33). Isaiah reveals the Lord as one “who frustrates the omens of liars, and makes fools of diviners” (Is 44:25, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Magic; Sorcery.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OMEN<\/h3>\n<p>Natural sign or occurrence prefiguring the outcome of a future event. Augury was listed among the abominable pagan practices forbidden to Israel (Dt 18:10). Balaam, upon seeing that the Lord was pleased with his blessings on Israel, did not seek omens as he normally did (Nm 24:1). The men of Syria looked for an omen to see if King Ahab of Israel (874–853 <span>BC<\/span>) would be favorably disposed to release the Syrian king Ben-hadad from captivity (1 Kgs 20:33). Isaiah reveals the Lord as one “who frustrates the omens of liars, and makes fools of diviners” (Is 44:25, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Magic; Sorcery.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OMEN Natural sign or occurrence prefiguring the outcome of a future event. Augury was listed among the abominable pagan practices forbidden to Israel (Dt 18:10). Balaam, upon seeing that the Lord was pleased with his blessings on Israel, did not seek omens as he normally did (Nm 24:1). The men of Syria looked for an omen to see if King Ahab of Israel (874–853 BC) would be favorably disposed to release the Syrian king Ben-hadad from captivity (1 Kgs 20:33). Isaiah reveals the Lord as one “who ...","summary_en":"OMEN Natural sign or occurrence prefiguring the outcome of a future event. Augury was listed among the abominable pagan practices forbidden to Israel (Dt 18:10). Balaam, upon seeing that the Lord was pleased with his blessings on Israel, did not seek omens as he normally did (Nm 24:1). The men of Syria looked for an omen to see if King Ahab of Israel (874–853 BC) would be favorably disposed to release the Syrian king Ben-hadad from captivity (1 Kgs 20:33). Isaiah reveals the Lord as one “who ...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31707,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35915,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Soothsayer*","title_en":"Soothsayer*","content_ro":"<h3>SOOTHSAYER*<\/h3>\n<p>One who foretells events; a pagan practice, soothsaying was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10, 14). In Scripture, soothsaying was practiced by Balaam, Beor’s son (Jos 13:22) and King Manasseh of Judah (2 Kgs 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6); Jacob’s descendants were likened to the soothsayers of Philistia (Is 2:6); they were listed among the false prophets of Judah (Jer 27:9). During NT times, soothsaying was the source of a lucrative trade in Philippi (Acts 16:16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Magic; Sorcery.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SOOTHSAYER*<\/h3>\n<p>One who foretells events; a pagan practice, soothsaying was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10, 14). In Scripture, soothsaying was practiced by Balaam, Beor’s son (Jos 13:22) and King Manasseh of Judah (2 Kgs 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6); Jacob’s descendants were likened to the soothsayers of Philistia (Is 2:6); they were listed among the false prophets of Judah (Jer 27:9). During NT times, soothsaying was the source of a lucrative trade in Philippi (Acts 16:16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Magic; Sorcery.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SOOTHSAYER* One who foretells events; a pagan practice, soothsaying was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10, 14). In Scripture, soothsaying was practiced by Balaam, Beor’s son (Jos 13:22) and King Manasseh of Judah (2 Kgs 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6); Jacob’s descendants were likened to the soothsayers of Philistia (Is 2:6); they were listed among the false prophets of Judah (Jer 27:9). During NT times, soothsaying was the source of a lucrative trade in Philippi (Acts 16:16). See also Magic; Sorcery.","summary_en":"SOOTHSAYER* One who foretells events; a pagan practice, soothsaying was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10, 14). In Scripture, soothsaying was practiced by Balaam, Beor’s son (Jos 13:22) and King Manasseh of Judah (2 Kgs 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6); Jacob’s descendants were likened to the soothsayers of Philistia (Is 2:6); they were listed among the false prophets of Judah (Jer 27:9). During NT times, soothsaying was the source of a lucrative trade in Philippi (Acts 16:16). See also Magic; Sorcery.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35929,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sorcery","title_en":"Sorcery","content_ro":"<h3>SORCERY<\/h3>\n<p>Practice whose adherents claim to have supernatural powers and knowledge; the ability to foretell the future and to summon evil spirits through charms and magical spells. Sorcerers were present in the high courts of Egypt (Ex 7:11), Assyria (Na 3:4), and Babylonia (Dn 2:2). Sorcery was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10) and was punishable by death (Ex 22:18). Nonetheless, Israel sought out sorcerers (2 Kgs 17:17; 2 Chr 33:6; Mi 5:12), provoking God’s anger against her (Is 57:3; Mal 3:5). Paul included it in a list of sinful works (Gal 5:20), and the book of Revelation condemned its practitioners to the lake of fire (Rv 21:8) and to eternal separation from the righteous (22:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Magic.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SORCERY<\/h3>\n<p>Practice whose adherents claim to have supernatural powers and knowledge; the ability to foretell the future and to summon evil spirits through charms and magical spells. Sorcerers were present in the high courts of Egypt (Ex 7:11), Assyria (Na 3:4), and Babylonia (Dn 2:2). Sorcery was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10) and was punishable by death (Ex 22:18). Nonetheless, Israel sought out sorcerers (2 Kgs 17:17; 2 Chr 33:6; Mi 5:12), provoking God’s anger against her (Is 57:3; Mal 3:5). Paul included it in a list of sinful works (Gal 5:20), and the book of Revelation condemned its practitioners to the lake of fire (Rv 21:8) and to eternal separation from the righteous (22:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Magic.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SORCERY Practice whose adherents claim to have supernatural powers and knowledge; the ability to foretell the future and to summon evil spirits through charms and magical spells. Sorcerers were present in the high courts of Egypt (Ex 7:11), Assyria (Na 3:4), and Babylonia (Dn 2:2). Sorcery was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10) and was punishable by death (Ex 22:18). Nonetheless, Israel sought out sorcerers (2 Kgs 17:17; 2 Chr 33:6; Mi 5:12), provoking God’s anger against her (Is 57:3; Mal 3:5). ...","summary_en":"SORCERY Practice whose adherents claim to have supernatural powers and knowledge; the ability to foretell the future and to summon evil spirits through charms and magical spells. Sorcerers were present in the high courts of Egypt (Ex 7:11), Assyria (Na 3:4), and Babylonia (Dn 2:2). Sorcery was forbidden in Israel (Dt 18:10) and was punishable by death (Ex 22:18). Nonetheless, Israel sought out sorcerers (2 Kgs 17:17; 2 Chr 33:6; Mi 5:12), provoking God’s anger against her (Is 57:3; Mal 3:5). ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45078,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","summary_en":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72704,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","summary_en":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100330,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","summary_en":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127956,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:10<\/strong> <em>never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering:<\/em> Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • <em>fortune-telling:<\/em> Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through <em>extispicy,<\/em> the examination of livers, kidneys, and other internal organs of various animals. • <em>sorcery:<\/em> Sorcerers conjured up the spirits of the dead. • Divining cups were often used to <em>interpret omens<\/em> (see Gen 44:5). Drops of oil would be placed in containers of water, and the spread of the oil communicated some message to the expert. A parallel would be reading tea leaves. • The practice of <em>witchcraft<\/em> included performing unusual acts or signs (Exod 7:11) to mislead people (Mal 3:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","summary_en":"18:10 never sacrifice your son or daughter as a burnt offering: Some Canaanite religions included child sacrifice to appease their gods. Israel was strictly warned never to engage in this practice (Exod 34:15-16; Lev 18:21; 20:2-5). When they did, it aroused God’s judgment (2 Kgs 17:16-17; 21:6; Ezek 23:37). • fortune-telling: Throughout the ancient Near East, diviners were considered experts at reading and interpreting omens. Divination was commonly done through extispicy, the examination of...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":8936,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Place of the Dead","title_en":"Place of the Dead","content_ro":"<h3>DEAD, Place of the<\/h3>\n<p>Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, one descends to Sheol (often translated as “grave,” “hell,” “pit,” or simply “the dead”), which at times means merely that one is laid in a grave (Nm 16:30, 33), but more often indicates an underworld. The abode of the dead is pictured as a place beneath the earth to which one “goes down” (Gn 42:38; Prv 15:24; Ez 26:20) and as a place of gloomy darkness (Jb 10:21-22), silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17), and forgetfulness (Ps 88:12). God is not remembered there and his praises are never sung (Pss 6:5; 30:9; 115:17). Even God himself, it was believed, does not remember those who are there (Ps 88:5, 11; Is 38:18). The dead were seen as permanently cut off from contact with the Lord and from participating in his activity in history. Even though the border between life and death was considered fluid (as shown by a resurrection in 2 Kgs 4:32-37 and by Samuel’s ghost in 1 Sm 28:7-25), communication with the dead was forbidden to the Jews (Dt 18:11). (Worshiping the dead was a common practice in the nations surrounding Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Although one’s fate in the underworld could not properly be called life, it was a kind of existence, perhaps even in the company of one’s countrymen and ancestors (Gn 25:8; Ez 32:17-30). The realm of the dead was not beyond the reach of God’s power (Ps 139:8; Am 9:2; Jon 2:2). Although Sheol was pictured as a hungry monster wolfing down the living (Prv 27:20; 30:16), God’s power could save one from its grasp (Pss 49:15; 86:13). By the end of the OT period, there was even hope that one would finally be delivered from Sheol (Jb 14:13-22; 19:25-27; Pss 49:15; 73:23-28), although only Daniel expressed that hope clearly (Dn 12:1-2). So although the ancient Hebrews never looked forward to death in the same way that the apostle Paul could in the NT (2 Cor 5:1-8; Phil 1:21-23), nevertheless they did come to understand that death was not a hopeless state.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheIntertestamentalWritings\">In the Intertestamental Writings<\/p>\n<p>Between the exile and the beginning of the NT period (586 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 30, overlapping with the end of the OT), contact with the religions of Persia and Greece stimulated the Jews to clarify their ideas about life after death. When the OT was translated into Greek, the Greek name for the underworld, “hades,” was used to translate the Hebrew “Sheol.” In the NT, hades was carried over to become the common name for the abode of the dead.<\/p>\n<p>Along with new names came new ideas. Many different notions circulated about the place of the dead. A common one appears in the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch 22, where the dead are said to be kept in hollow places in a great mountain waiting for the final judgment. One relatively pleasant section was reserved for the righteous and one full of torments for the wicked. Other writers continued the OT concept of hades or Sheol as a place of separation from God and from happiness (Ecclus 14:12, 16; 17:27-28).<\/p>\n<p>During that period, the Jews also began to use a new term, “Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. Gehenna became a designation for the final place of the wicked dead, a place of fiery torment (1 Enoch 90:20-27; 2 Esd 7:70). Over against that place of punishment stood “paradise” (a Persian name for a pleasure garden), a place where the righteous would enjoy blessedness.<\/p>\n<p>All those concepts—hades, Gehenna, paradise—were molded by NT writers into forms most appropriate to the revelation of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although the NT uses a variety of terms for the abode of the dead, it contains surprisingly few references to it—about 35 verses in all. Those passages are concentrated in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. The apostle Paul said a lot about heaven, but only Jesus and John said much about hell.<\/p>\n<p>The word “hades” is attributed to Jesus only once, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:23). In that parable hades is a place of torment where the wicked go at death. The torment is described as a “flame” that afflicts a person physically despite bodily death. All comfort is refused to those in agony.<\/p>\n<p>Although the wicked go to hades as soon as they die, their ultimate destination is Gehenna, a place of fire and worms, both indicating corruption (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 18:9; Mk 9:48, quoting from Is 66:24). Jesus also referred to Gehenna as “the outer darkness” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Evidently, after the final judgment, the wicked are sent there at the command of Christ (Jn 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tm 4:1). That place of torment picks up the negative side of the OT concept of Sheol as a place of separation from God.<\/p>\n<p>As a preacher of repentance, Jesus stressed the danger of Gehenna. He had much less to say about the place of the righteous when they die. Ultimately, though, the righteous would enter into “the kingdom,” instead of Gehenna, after the last judgment (Mt 25:34). Jesus twice indicated that the righteous enter a blessed state immediately at death. Luke 16:22 refers to the dead Lazarus as being in “Abraham’s bosom,” a place of comfort and peace. Luke 23:43 calls the same place paradise in a promise that the dying thief would join Jesus there at death. Paul’s wording about paradise seems to align it with heaven (2 Cor 12:2-3), and John associates paradise with the new heaven and new earth (Rv 2:7; 21:1-2; 22:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and other writers of the NT epistles had little to say about the abode of the wicked dead. Paul spoke only in passing of “the abyss”—his term for the pit of Sheol (Rom 10:7). His reference to Christ’s descent to the “lower parts of the earth” (Eph 4:9) is probably only his way of saying that Christ, having died, went to the place of the dead. (“The lowest earth” was a term used by Jewish rabbis for Sheol\/hades\/Gehenna.) Peter spoke of Christ’s going in “spirit” after his death to some “prison” where he “preached to the spirits” (1 Pt 3:18-20). Interpretations of that passage differ. Some think that Christ entered hades and preached to the fallen angels of Noah’s day (“sons of God,” Gn 6:1-4), not that he preached to imprisoned human spirits. In 2 Peter 2:4 the prison for spirits (usually translated “hell”) comes from “Tartarus,” another Greek name for the underworld.<\/p>\n<p>Paul had much to say about the abode of the righteous dead. In his earliest letters he never mentioned their location, only that they would be resurrected (1 Cor 15; 1 Thes 4:13-17). After facing almost certain death himself (2 Cor 1:8-11), he began to discuss where the dead “went.” To die means to be with Christ, Paul said, and thus is better than life (Phil 1:23). To be “away from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). Paul probably meant that the righteous dead went directly to paradise to be with Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4, where Paul called paradise “the third heaven”). Death has absolutely no power to separate Christians from Christ (Rom 8:38-39). Instead, it brings them into the presence of God.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation contains much about the abode of the dead, especially the wicked dead. It uses two names for that place: “the abyss,” the home or prison of all evil spirits; and “hades,” the name for the place of the human dead. From the abyss (or bottomless pit) come the demonic forms that torment humanity (Rv 9:1-11) and the satanic “beast,” who kills the two witnesses and carries the “great prostitute” on its back (11:7; 17). There Satan himself will be imprisoned (20:2-3). Jesus described it as a place prepared for the devil and his angels (cf. Mt 25:41). The good news for Christians is that the abyss, or hades, is not an autonomous realm. The book of Revelation begins with Jesus’ announcement that he has the keys to hades (Rv 1:18), and in the end he will force it to give up its dead (20:13). Until then, the key to the abyss is not in the hand of Satan, but hangs on a heavenly key ring to be distributed only to the messengers of God (9:1; 20:1). In the end, hades, death, and the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna), where they will suffer eternal torment (19:20; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8).<\/p>\n<p>John, the writer of the Revelation, agreed with Paul that the righteous will not share the fate of the wicked at death. Instead of going to hades, they go to heaven. The martyrs appear under the altar, calling to God to avenge them (Rv 6:9-11). In another image innumerable Christians appear before the throne of God, praising him (7:9-17). Those believers, shepherded by Christ himself, suffer no hunger, thirst, discomfort, or sorrow.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the place of the dead began in the OT as an undifferentiated, hazy idea of a place of separation from life and God. Later writers came to see that instead of one place for all (Sheol), there must be two. According to Christian teaching, the wicked enter the underworld, hades, a place of torment, where they suffer until the time of judgment; ultimately they will be cast into Gehenna, the lake of fire. Christ—not the devil—is in control of hades, as he is of the rest of creation. The righteous do not go to hades, but go directly to paradise (“Abraham’s bosom” or heaven). There they are with Christ; faith has become sight, suffering has become blessedness, and prayer has become praise. Christians believe that death, although fearful as the “last enemy,” has no torment for them. It has no power to separate them from their Lord. Rather, it brings them face-to-face with the One they love.<\/p>\n<p>This meeting may occur as soon as one dies or as soon as one is resurrected—the intervening time is of no consequence, because it is nothing more than just a time of sleep. In other words, the very next experience after death for the believer will be that of meeting Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Both Old and New Testaments speak of death as sleep. Commonly in the OT, when a person dies, he is said to go to sleep with his fathers (e.g., Dt 31:16; 2 Sm 7:12). Jesus himself spoke of death as sleep (Mt 9:24; Jn 11:11). So did the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:30; 15:20, 51; 1 Thes 4:14). At least in some of these references it would seem that it is the temporary nature of death that is the reason why it is spoken of as sleep. Even in the OT passage Daniel 12:2, it is said that death is a sleep, until the dead rise up—some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gehenna; Hades; Heaven; Hell; Intermediate State; Paradise; Sheol.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEAD, Place of the<\/h3>\n<p>Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, one descends to Sheol (often translated as “grave,” “hell,” “pit,” or simply “the dead”), which at times means merely that one is laid in a grave (Nm 16:30, 33), but more often indicates an underworld. The abode of the dead is pictured as a place beneath the earth to which one “goes down” (Gn 42:38; Prv 15:24; Ez 26:20) and as a place of gloomy darkness (Jb 10:21-22), silence (Pss 94:17; 115:17), and forgetfulness (Ps 88:12). God is not remembered there and his praises are never sung (Pss 6:5; 30:9; 115:17). Even God himself, it was believed, does not remember those who are there (Ps 88:5, 11; Is 38:18). The dead were seen as permanently cut off from contact with the Lord and from participating in his activity in history. Even though the border between life and death was considered fluid (as shown by a resurrection in 2 Kgs 4:32-37 and by Samuel’s ghost in 1 Sm 28:7-25), communication with the dead was forbidden to the Jews (Dt 18:11). (Worshiping the dead was a common practice in the nations surrounding Israel.)<\/p>\n<p>Although one’s fate in the underworld could not properly be called life, it was a kind of existence, perhaps even in the company of one’s countrymen and ancestors (Gn 25:8; Ez 32:17-30). The realm of the dead was not beyond the reach of God’s power (Ps 139:8; Am 9:2; Jon 2:2). Although Sheol was pictured as a hungry monster wolfing down the living (Prv 27:20; 30:16), God’s power could save one from its grasp (Pss 49:15; 86:13). By the end of the OT period, there was even hope that one would finally be delivered from Sheol (Jb 14:13-22; 19:25-27; Pss 49:15; 73:23-28), although only Daniel expressed that hope clearly (Dn 12:1-2). So although the ancient Hebrews never looked forward to death in the same way that the apostle Paul could in the NT (2 Cor 5:1-8; Phil 1:21-23), nevertheless they did come to understand that death was not a hopeless state.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheIntertestamentalWritings\">In the Intertestamental Writings<\/p>\n<p>Between the exile and the beginning of the NT period (586 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 30, overlapping with the end of the OT), contact with the religions of Persia and Greece stimulated the Jews to clarify their ideas about life after death. When the OT was translated into Greek, the Greek name for the underworld, “hades,” was used to translate the Hebrew “Sheol.” In the NT, hades was carried over to become the common name for the abode of the dead.<\/p>\n<p>Along with new names came new ideas. Many different notions circulated about the place of the dead. A common one appears in the pseudepigraphal 1 Enoch 22, where the dead are said to be kept in hollow places in a great mountain waiting for the final judgment. One relatively pleasant section was reserved for the righteous and one full of torments for the wicked. Other writers continued the OT concept of hades or Sheol as a place of separation from God and from happiness (Ecclus 14:12, 16; 17:27-28).<\/p>\n<p>During that period, the Jews also began to use a new term, “Gehenna” (Hebrew “Hinnom”), the name of a valley south of Jerusalem. The valley was noted in the OT period for the abomination of child sacrifices (2 Kgs 16:3; 21:6; 23:10) and in the NT period for its smoldering garbage. Gehenna became a designation for the final place of the wicked dead, a place of fiery torment (1 Enoch 90:20-27; 2 Esd 7:70). Over against that place of punishment stood “paradise” (a Persian name for a pleasure garden), a place where the righteous would enjoy blessedness.<\/p>\n<p>All those concepts—hades, Gehenna, paradise—were molded by NT writers into forms most appropriate to the revelation of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Although the NT uses a variety of terms for the abode of the dead, it contains surprisingly few references to it—about 35 verses in all. Those passages are concentrated in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. The apostle Paul said a lot about heaven, but only Jesus and John said much about hell.<\/p>\n<p>The word “hades” is attributed to Jesus only once, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:23). In that parable hades is a place of torment where the wicked go at death. The torment is described as a “flame” that afflicts a person physically despite bodily death. All comfort is refused to those in agony.<\/p>\n<p>Although the wicked go to hades as soon as they die, their ultimate destination is Gehenna, a place of fire and worms, both indicating corruption (Mt 5:22, 29-30; 18:9; Mk 9:48, quoting from Is 66:24). Jesus also referred to Gehenna as “the outer darkness” where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Evidently, after the final judgment, the wicked are sent there at the command of Christ (Jn 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tm 4:1). That place of torment picks up the negative side of the OT concept of Sheol as a place of separation from God.<\/p>\n<p>As a preacher of repentance, Jesus stressed the danger of Gehenna. He had much less to say about the place of the righteous when they die. Ultimately, though, the righteous would enter into “the kingdom,” instead of Gehenna, after the last judgment (Mt 25:34). Jesus twice indicated that the righteous enter a blessed state immediately at death. Luke 16:22 refers to the dead Lazarus as being in “Abraham’s bosom,” a place of comfort and peace. Luke 23:43 calls the same place paradise in a promise that the dying thief would join Jesus there at death. Paul’s wording about paradise seems to align it with heaven (2 Cor 12:2-3), and John associates paradise with the new heaven and new earth (Rv 2:7; 21:1-2; 22:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and other writers of the NT epistles had little to say about the abode of the wicked dead. Paul spoke only in passing of “the abyss”—his term for the pit of Sheol (Rom 10:7). His reference to Christ’s descent to the “lower parts of the earth” (Eph 4:9) is probably only his way of saying that Christ, having died, went to the place of the dead. (“The lowest earth” was a term used by Jewish rabbis for Sheol\/hades\/Gehenna.) Peter spoke of Christ’s going in “spirit” after his death to some “prison” where he “preached to the spirits” (1 Pt 3:18-20). Interpretations of that passage differ. Some think that Christ entered hades and preached to the fallen angels of Noah’s day (“sons of God,” Gn 6:1-4), not that he preached to imprisoned human spirits. In 2 Peter 2:4 the prison for spirits (usually translated “hell”) comes from “Tartarus,” another Greek name for the underworld.<\/p>\n<p>Paul had much to say about the abode of the righteous dead. In his earliest letters he never mentioned their location, only that they would be resurrected (1 Cor 15; 1 Thes 4:13-17). After facing almost certain death himself (2 Cor 1:8-11), he began to discuss where the dead “went.” To die means to be with Christ, Paul said, and thus is better than life (Phil 1:23). To be “away from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). Paul probably meant that the righteous dead went directly to paradise to be with Jesus (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4, where Paul called paradise “the third heaven”). Death has absolutely no power to separate Christians from Christ (Rom 8:38-39). Instead, it brings them into the presence of God.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation contains much about the abode of the dead, especially the wicked dead. It uses two names for that place: “the abyss,” the home or prison of all evil spirits; and “hades,” the name for the place of the human dead. From the abyss (or bottomless pit) come the demonic forms that torment humanity (Rv 9:1-11) and the satanic “beast,” who kills the two witnesses and carries the “great prostitute” on its back (11:7; 17). There Satan himself will be imprisoned (20:2-3). Jesus described it as a place prepared for the devil and his angels (cf. Mt 25:41). The good news for Christians is that the abyss, or hades, is not an autonomous realm. The book of Revelation begins with Jesus’ announcement that he has the keys to hades (Rv 1:18), and in the end he will force it to give up its dead (20:13). Until then, the key to the abyss is not in the hand of Satan, but hangs on a heavenly key ring to be distributed only to the messengers of God (9:1; 20:1). In the end, hades, death, and the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire (Gehenna), where they will suffer eternal torment (19:20; 20:10, 14-15; 21:8).<\/p>\n<p>John, the writer of the Revelation, agreed with Paul that the righteous will not share the fate of the wicked at death. Instead of going to hades, they go to heaven. The martyrs appear under the altar, calling to God to avenge them (Rv 6:9-11). In another image innumerable Christians appear before the throne of God, praising him (7:9-17). Those believers, shepherded by Christ himself, suffer no hunger, thirst, discomfort, or sorrow.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>In summary, the place of the dead began in the OT as an undifferentiated, hazy idea of a place of separation from life and God. Later writers came to see that instead of one place for all (Sheol), there must be two. According to Christian teaching, the wicked enter the underworld, hades, a place of torment, where they suffer until the time of judgment; ultimately they will be cast into Gehenna, the lake of fire. Christ—not the devil—is in control of hades, as he is of the rest of creation. The righteous do not go to hades, but go directly to paradise (“Abraham’s bosom” or heaven). There they are with Christ; faith has become sight, suffering has become blessedness, and prayer has become praise. Christians believe that death, although fearful as the “last enemy,” has no torment for them. It has no power to separate them from their Lord. Rather, it brings them face-to-face with the One they love.<\/p>\n<p>This meeting may occur as soon as one dies or as soon as one is resurrected—the intervening time is of no consequence, because it is nothing more than just a time of sleep. In other words, the very next experience after death for the believer will be that of meeting Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Both Old and New Testaments speak of death as sleep. Commonly in the OT, when a person dies, he is said to go to sleep with his fathers (e.g., Dt 31:16; 2 Sm 7:12). Jesus himself spoke of death as sleep (Mt 9:24; Jn 11:11). So did the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:30; 15:20, 51; 1 Thes 4:14). At least in some of these references it would seem that it is the temporary nature of death that is the reason why it is spoken of as sleep. Even in the OT passage Daniel 12:2, it is said that death is a sleep, until the dead rise up—some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gehenna; Hades; Heaven; Hell; Intermediate State; Paradise; Sheol.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEAD, Place of the Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT. In the Old Testament The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, ...","summary_en":"DEAD, Place of the Term covering a number of descriptive biblical images of the whereabouts of those who have died. Those images include Sheol and “the pit” in the OT, plus hades, Gehenna, paradise, and “Abraham’s bosom” in the NT. As their understanding advanced, the Hebrews’ idea of what happens at death changed from rather hazy beginnings to a developed concept found in the NT. In the Old Testament The OT contains meager information about the dead. At death, according to some OT passages, ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27181,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Necromancer*, Necromancy*","title_en":"Necromancer*, Necromancy*","content_ro":"<h3>NECROMANCER*, NECROMANCY*<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of communicating with the dead; a practice strictly forbidden by the law (Dt 18:11). <em>See<\/em> Magic; Medium; Psychics.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NECROMANCER*, NECROMANCY*<\/h3>\n<p>Practice of communicating with the dead; a practice strictly forbidden by the law (Dt 18:11). <em>See<\/em> Magic; Medium; Psychics.<\/p>","summary_ro":"NECROMANCER*, NECROMANCY* Practice of communicating with the dead; a practice strictly forbidden by the law (Dt 18:11). See Magic; Medium; Psychics.","summary_en":"NECROMANCER*, NECROMANCY* Practice of communicating with the dead; a practice strictly forbidden by the law (Dt 18:11). See Magic; Medium; Psychics.","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45079,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","summary_en":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72705,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","summary_en":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100331,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","summary_en":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127957,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:11<\/strong> <em>cast spells:<\/em> These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • <em>Mediums<\/em> and <em>psychics<\/em> were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","summary_en":"18:11 cast spells: These incantations wereto destroy or injure others by invoking curses on them. The false prophet Balaam was hired for this purpose against Israel (Num 22:2-6). • Mediums and psychics were especially adept at conjuring up and communicating with the spirits of the dead (see 1 Sam 28:3-25).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":257,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abomination","title_en":"Abomination","content_ro":"<h3>ABOMINATION<\/h3>\n<p>Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.”<\/p>\n<p>Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17:1) to magic and divination (Dt 18:12) or idolatrous practices (2 Kgs 16:3). A second Hebrew word refers to the meat of certain kinds of animals that was ritually defiling, whether touched or eaten (Lv 11:10-13). A third word designates three-day-old sacrificial meat (Lv 7:18). A fourth word refers almost exclusively to idolatrous objects of pagan origin (Jer 4:1; 7:30). Apart from the specialized usage of “abomination of desolation,” the Greek word for “abomination” is used infrequently in the NT (Lk 16:15; Rom 2:22; Ti 1:16; Rv 17:4-5; 21:8, 27) and is translated by many English words. The primary connotation is anything that is abhorrent to a holy God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Dietary Laws (After Moses).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ABOMINATION<\/h3>\n<p>Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.”<\/p>\n<p>Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17:1) to magic and divination (Dt 18:12) or idolatrous practices (2 Kgs 16:3). A second Hebrew word refers to the meat of certain kinds of animals that was ritually defiling, whether touched or eaten (Lv 11:10-13). A third word designates three-day-old sacrificial meat (Lv 7:18). A fourth word refers almost exclusively to idolatrous objects of pagan origin (Jer 4:1; 7:30). Apart from the specialized usage of “abomination of desolation,” the Greek word for “abomination” is used infrequently in the NT (Lk 16:15; Rom 2:22; Ti 1:16; Rv 17:4-5; 21:8, 27) and is translated by many English words. The primary connotation is anything that is abhorrent to a holy God.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Dietary Laws (After Moses).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ABOMINATION Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.” Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17...","summary_en":"ABOMINATION Repugnant or detestable act, person, or thing. The idea of abomination derives from the specific demands God’s holiness makes upon his people. Adjectives frequently used for abominations in the OT are “abhorrent,” “loathsome,” “unclean,” and “rejected.” Of the four major Hebrew words translated “abomination,” the one most frequently used indicates violation of an established custom or ritual that, in turn, brings the judgment of God. Examples range from defective sacrifices (Dt 17...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31708,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":22819,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Biblical Concept of Law","title_en":"Biblical Concept of Law","content_ro":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAW, Biblical Concept of<\/h3>\n<p>God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>• Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>• Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>• Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HistoricalContext\">Historical Context<\/p>\n<p>When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). However, in his exalted status as ruler over God’s creation on earth, man had to prove his loyalty to the Lord. For this purpose God set up a simple test: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was prohibited from eating the fruit of that tree (2:17). His disobedience marked him as unfit for fellowship with the great King. He was rebellious and by nature full of treachery, as the subsequent accounts of Cain (4:1-16), the generation of the Flood (6:1-13), Ham and Canaan (9:18-26; 10:6-20), and the Tower of Babel (11:1-9) demonstrate.<\/p>\n<p>Yet in the midst of all this the Lord graciously called Abraham. He promised to bless him, his seed, and the families of the earth that would join in a common expression of faith (Gn 12:2-3; 17:4-7). Abraham responded to God in faith (15:6), willingly observed the ritual of circumcision as a sign of the covenant (17:10; cf. 21:4), and walked before God with integrity of heart (17:1). Abraham subsequently learned that God had sovereignly and graciously chosen him with the purpose that Abraham’s family might distinguish itself from the nations “by doing righteousness and justice” (18:19). The Lord was pleased with his servant Abraham, who, though he had not received detailed laws, was a man of integrity. His heart was right with God, so that he willingly did what God commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The father of faith was the father of the faithful; the Lord testified that Abraham “obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (Gn 26:5, <span>niv<\/span>). His faith resulted in the fruits of righteousness (Jas 2:21-24).<\/p>\n<p>However, Israel, blessed by the Lord in the increase of descendants, the exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea, and his presence, did not respond to him in faith. They murmured and complained at Mt Sinai, at Kadesh-barnea, and in the plains of Moab. They proved themselves to be a rebellious and stiff-necked people (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13). Though they had shown their character, the Lord was faithful to Abraham by covenanting himself to them. Israel became his people, his royal priesthood, his holy nation (Ex 19:5-6; Dt 26:18-19). He gave Israel the Ten Commandments, the law, and the covenant, symbolized by the two tablets of the testimony (Ex 32:15-16). Even after Moses had broken them in anger because of the people’s idolatrous worship of the golden calf, the Lord renewed his covenant by writing again the words of the covenant (34:28). On one hand, the context in which the law was given reflects God’s grace and forbearance with Israel’s sins (vv 6-7) and his determination to use Israel in the unfolding of his plan of redemption for the world. On the other hand, the context reflects Israel’s immaturity and stubbornness. Therefore, the law in the OT has positive and negative purposes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LawintheOldTestament\">Law in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The OT has many words for God’s law. The most general word is <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Torah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which signifies instruction of any kind: religious and secular, written and oral, divine and human. Law in Israel was God’s law, mediated through Moses (Ex 20:19; Dt 5:23-27). Because Israel rejected the direct revelation of God’s oracles, the law was mediated through Moses the servant of God (Jn 1:17).<\/p>\n<p>Synonyms for law are, in various translations, word (cf. Ex 24:3; 34:27), judgment (cf. Ex 24:3), decree (cf. Nm 30:16; Dt 4:1), ordinance (cf. Nm 9:12, 14; Dt 6:2), command(ment) (cf. Dt 6:1, 25), statutes (Lv 3:17; 10:11), precepts (a Hebrew word used only in Psalms; cf. 119:4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93, 94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173), stipulations, requirements, testimonies (cf. Dt 4:45; 6:20; 1 Kgs 2:3), precept (a Hebrew term not in the Pentateuch; cf. Ps 119:15), or simply the “way(s)” (cf. 1 Kgs 2:3; Pss 18:21; 25:9; 37:34).<\/p>\n<p>These words form a semantic field, and it is far from easy to distinguish clearly among the various forms of laws. Generally “the words” pertain to the duties of man toward God, especially the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1; 34:27). The “judgments” contain civil regulations and duties to one’s fellows and to the social environment (21:1–23:9); these are often in the form of “if . . . then. . . .” In Leviticus and in cultic formulations the word “ordinances” has the technical sense of cultic regulations—the ceremonial laws. However, in other contexts, especially in a series of synonyms for law, it signifies any expectation or regulation. The “commandments” are those regulations given by a higher authority. Though the OT has many words for law, the connotation of one word is often indistinguishable from that of other words, especially in series such as “the decrees and laws” (Dt 4:1, 5; 5:1), “the commands, decrees and laws” (6:1), “walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses” (1 Kgs 2:3, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The motivation for keeping the divine law lies in the acts and presence of the Lord. The prologue to the Decalogue reminds us of God’s mighty acts: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span> your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). In the historic acts of Israel’s redemption, revelation at Mt Sinai, and consecration of Israel to be his people, he involved himself with Israel as a “father.” He adopted Israel to sonship and consecrated them; that is, he declared them holy (Ex 19:6; 31:13; Lv 20:8; 22:32; cf. Rom 9:4). Sometimes the two concepts of redemption and consecration are placed together, but whether they are or not, they are inseparable: “I am the <span>Lord<\/span>, who makes you holy” (Lv 22:32b, <span>niv<\/span>). The ground of obedience can be stated simply by an appeal to God’s name: “I am Yahweh” (cf. Lv 18:6, 21, 30; 19:10, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30-31, 34, 36-37). The requisite of practical holiness is also based on the experience of God’s presence. The Lord commanded Israel to be holy because he is holy (Lv 11:44-45; 19:2). The “holy one of Israel” dwelt in the midst of his people (Ex 25:8; 29:45; Nm 5:3; 35:34).<\/p>\n<p>How could rebellious Israel grasp what God required, if it were not by precise moral, social, civil, and cultic regulations? The Lord had observed that they did not have “the heart” to serve him as a covenant-loyal people (Dt 5:29). By Israel’s very nature, it could not develop an adequate moral and cultic system to please God. Because of the people’s hardness of heart, God had to reveal (i.e., “spell out”) his will.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IsraeliteLawandtheAncientNearEast\">Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s law reflected the practices of its ancient Near Eastern context. Ancient Babylonian law codes (Eshnunna, Hammurabi) show similarities with the biblical codes. The similarities go beyond similarity of cases and include legal formulations (casuistic law). Israelite law is distinct in that it is divine law. Moses is the mediator and not the promulgator of the law, as was the practice of a king who, like Hammurabi, put into force a legal code. The Lord himself gave Israel its laws (cf. Dt 4:5-8). The laws in the ancient Near East dealt with the ordering of society. But Israel’s laws were given to regulate every aspect of life: personal, familial, social, and cultic. The laws were to teach Israel to distinguish between holy and profane, between clean and unclean, and between just and unjust.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentLaws\">Old Testament Laws<\/p>\n<p>The legal corpus of the OT is not given in one book or in one section. Moreover, the laws reflect the development from the desert context (Exodus) to the context of the land (Deuteronomy). The OT legal material is complex, full of variations and duplications. It is found in Exodus (chs 20–24; 25–31), Leviticus, Numbers (chs 3–6; 8–10; 15; 18; 19; 28–30), and Deuteronomy (chs 5–26).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ten Commandments<\/h5>\n<p>The commandments are simply designated as “the words” of God (Ex 20:1). They appear in Exodus 20:1-17 and in Deuteronomy 5:6-21, but minor variations and individual commandments occur in other contexts (e.g., Ex 34:14, 17, 21; Lv 19:1-8; Dt 27:15-16). As a part of the covenant, the commandments were first addressed to Israel; they now form the basis of morality in Christianity. The abiding relevance of the moral law is clear from the NT. Our Lord established his authority as interpreter of all the commandments (Mt 5:17-48; 12:1-14; 23:23-24). He summarized the law in terms of love for God and man (cf. Mt 22:37-40; Mk 12:28-34; Lk 10:27; cf. Rom 13:8-9; Gal 5:14). Since he is also the Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath cannot be divorced from the other commandments (Mt 12:8). The apostle Paul also upheld the law, as his “ethics of the Spirit” reflects an internalization of the law of God in the hearts of believers (cf. Rom 8:1-17; 12:1–15:13; 1 Cor 2:6-16; 5:1-8; 10:23–11:1; Gal 5:13–6:10; Eph 4:17–6:9; Phil 2:1-18; Col 3:1–4:6; 1 Thes 4:1-12; 5:12-24; 2 Thes 3:6-15; 1 Tm 6:3-10; Ti 3:1-11).<\/p>\n<p>The commandments were written on both sides of the two tablets by the Lord (Ex 32:15-16). It is unclear whether the tablets were duplicate copies, how the commandments were divided, and how the commandments were numbered. They were kept in the ark of the covenant as a testimony to the covenant (40:20).<\/p>\n<h5>The Book of the Covenant (Ex 20:23–23:19)<\/h5>\n<p>The purpose of the covenant code was to exemplify and to set into motion the legal machinery by which Israel as a nation could reflect God’s concern for justice, love, peace, and the value of life. The laws in the Book of the Covenant are mainly of the casuistic type. They regulate life in an agricultural society with servants, donkeys, bulls, oxen, sheep, and fields of grain. The regulations pertain to relations with women (including widows), aliens, orphans; to legal concerns (liability, damages, ownership); as well as to religious obligations (altar, Sabbath). Often the law requires restitution, but restitution is not the rule when human life is involved (Ex 21:12-29; 22:2-3), especially when it involves one’s family (21:15-17, 22-25). The penal code attached to the case laws makes clear the value of human life, which is protected by the <em>lex talionis<\/em> (“law of retaliation”). The <em>lex talionis<\/em> does not point to a lack of forgiveness under the OT but rather was intended to be a legal principle giving coherence and justice to a society. The Book of the Covenant explicates by means of principles and cases how Israel must live together as a nation embracing the law of God and applying it <em>justly<\/em> (without discrimination or twisting of rights), <em>lovingly<\/em> (with a concern for the parties involved), and <em>peaceably.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>The Priestly Law<\/h5>\n<p>God’s concern for holiness and purity comes to expression in the priestly laws (Ex 25–31; 35–40; Lv 1–27; Nm 4–10). The regulations pertain to the construction of the tabernacle, the consecration and ordination of priests, the offerings and sacrifices, rules of purity, the holy days, and vows.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle was set in the middle of Israel’s camp in the wilderness. It symbolized the presence of God with his people. The priests and Levites were encamped around the tabernacle to serve and protect God’s holiness. All the tribes were situated around the tabernacle, and though the members of the tribes did not have access to all parts of the tabernacle, they had to be ritually clean to live in the camp. Anyone who was ritually defiled (Lv 13:46; Nm 5:1-3) or had sinned grievously was put outside the camp (Lv 24:10-23; Nm 15:32-36). This regulation even included objects that had become defiled (Lv 8:17; 9:11).<\/p>\n<p>By means of prescribed offerings and sacrifices (Lv 1–7; 16; Nm 15:1-31; 28), God assured Israel, individually and corporately, of forgiveness when it had unwittingly sinned. The offerings and sacrifices concretely embodied the purpose of the offerer, whether forgiveness, dedication, or fellowship.<\/p>\n<p>The priests and Levites taught the law of God (Dt 31:9-13), applied its regulations, and served in courts (17:8-13).<\/p>\n<h5>The Holiness Code (Lv 17–26)<\/h5>\n<p>The holiness code forms a significant part of the book of Leviticus. Here Moses addressed all of Israel (cf. Lv 17:2; 18:2; 19:2; 20:2; 21:24; 23:2; 24:2; 25:2; 26:46; 27:2).<\/p>\n<p>The laws are in the form of prohibitions and direct commands. They pertain to the place of sacrifice and the prohibition of eating meat with blood in it (ch 17); the prohibition of sexual relations with specified family members (ch 18); and regulations promoting godliness, holiness, justice, and love in society (ch 19). The penal code applies penalties to those who sin against the regulations (ch 20; 24:10-23). Chapters 21–24 apply the cultic regulations to the priests and to all Israelites. The institutions of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee regulate the remission of debts, freedom of people, and restitution of land (ch 25).<\/p>\n<p>The holiness code spells out the qualities required of a holy people: devotion to God (offerings, sacrifices, priests) and love for man (Lv 19:18b) demonstrated in concern for justice, peace, freedom, the value of human life, and a concern for the family. Many of the laws reflect the spirit of the Decalogue (ch 19).<\/p>\n<p>Both promises and curses are attached to the holiness code (ch 26). The curses predict exile as a consequence of breaking the laws. But always underlying the laws and penalties is the grace of the Lord, who promises freely to forgive the people’s sins and to renew the broken covenant (26:44-45).<\/p>\n<h5>Laws of Deuteronomy<\/h5>\n<p>The Deuteronomic laws are explications and new applications of the Book of the Covenant in view of Israel’s new historical situation. Israel was about to enter the Promised Land when Moses outlined to them the law of God (Dt 1:5). The impersonal element of the Book of the Covenant is here transformed by personal appeal. Moses strongly appeals to Israel to be loyal to the Lord, the covenant, and the covenantal stipulations. The Deuteronomic laws envision the people in the land of promise, with a central sanctuary (12:5, 11-18; 14:23; 15:20; 16:5-7, 16, 21; 17:8; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11) and with a king (17:14-20). The blessings and the curses motivate covenant loyalty (ch 28). However, Israel is also here assured that even if it breaks God’s law, the Lord remains gracious and forgiving.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposesoftheLaw\">Purposes of the Law<\/p>\n<p>The law revealed at Mt Sinai was intended to lead Israel closer to God. Rebellious though they were, God used the law as his righteous instrument to teach, in a very specific way, what sin is (cf. Rom 5:20; 7:7-8) and how they should walk on a path that kept them undefiled by sin and holy to the Lord. The law was the teacher and the keeper of Israel (Gal 3:24). The detailed explications of the laws in all areas of life (work, society, family, cult, and nation) had an important place in God’s dealings with Israel. Israel was a nation in a special land, with a theocratic government, and was in need of a legislative corpus. Moreover, Israel’s condition at Mt Sinai was such that it could not receive direct revelation. The revelation had to be mediated through Moses. It had to be set forth in detail because Israel had no intuitive grasp of what the revelation of God’s holiness, justice, righteousness, love, and forebearance required of them. They had adopted Egyptian ways and had to learn the divine will by revelation. However, Moses and the prophets emphasize that the purpose of the law is not strict adherence to the law for its own sake (legalism) or for a reward (Pharisaism). Keeping the law is an act of devotion to God, for the sake of God. Our Lord confirmed the purpose of the law: to establish a dynamic way of life in which one continually seeks God’s kingdom and his righteousness (Mt 6:33).<\/p>\n<p>The law of God is his means of sanctification. He consecrated Israel by an act of grace, and he required Israel to remain holy. Jesus confirmed those uses of the law whereby one may know his sinfulness and by which he may be driven to Christ. On the cross our Lord carried the penalties of the law, fulfilled in a greater way the tabernacle\/temple presence of God, fulfilled the Father’s expectations of atonement, and demonstrated the love of the Father. He, the Son and greater than Moses, gave the essence of the law in the summary of God’s requirements: love of God and love of neighbor (Mt 23:23-24; Lk 11:42-44). Jesus taught that the purpose of obedience is not primarily to receive a reward but to serve as salt (Mt 5:13) and light (Mt 5:14-16; cf. Eph 4:17–5:20), and to bear fruit (Jn 15:1-17). The purpose of the law of God is the gradual transformation of the children of God to reflect the image of the Son (Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; Col 3:10), to be an imitation of the Father (Eph 5:1-2), and to be filled with the Spirit of God (Gal 5:18, 22-24). For this purpose Jesus gave us the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount, which summarize the intent of the teaching of Moses and the prophets (Mt 5–7).<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the law is to transform regenerated believers into maturity. Spiritual maturity is not a privilege that was reserved for believers after Christ; OT saints also walked with God (Enoch, Gn 5:22-24; Noah, 6:9; Abraham, 17:1). These were mature men who lived with integrity in the presence of God (cf. Gn 17:1; Dt 18:13; Pss 15:1-2; 18:26; 101:2, 6; 119:80; Prv 11:5).<\/p>\n<p>Maturity, or integrity, is that response to God whereby the believer no longer needs to live by individual stipulations or in fear of mistakes and sins of omission, but delights in doing the Lord’s will (Pss 1:2; 112:1). Since the coming of Christ and Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been poured out on every believer. He has come not only to internalize the law of God (Jer 31:33) but also to help us develop Christian maturity by giving the fruits of godliness in greater fullness (Gal 5:22-24). Whereas maturity and freedom were experienced by some OT saints, it is God’s gift to all his children in Christ (Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 12:13). The purpose is still the same, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped [mature] for every good work” (2 Tm 3:17, <span>niv<\/span>), but the means to accomplish this and the status of the child of God is so much better since Pentecost.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Criminal Law and Punishment; Galatians, Letter to the; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Justification; Romans, Letter to the; Commandments, The Ten; Torah; Tradition.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","summary_en":"LAW, Biblical Concept of God’s means of consecrating his people to himself. The nature and content of “law” may change, but the goal remains the same: maturity and conformity to the image of God. Preview • Historical Context • Law in the Old Testament • Israelite Law and the Ancient Near East • Old Testament Laws • Purposes of the Law Historical Context When man was created in God’s image, he received glory, rule, and provision for his daily sustenance from the Creator-King (Gn 1:27-30). Howe...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31709,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":22024,"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}],"15":[{"id":10954,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ephod (Garment)","title_en":"Ephod (Garment)","content_ro":"<h3>EPHOD (Garment)<\/h3>\n<p>Upper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests.<\/p>\n<p>Made of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarlet, and gold. At the upper end were attached two shoulder straps, each having an onyx stone inscribed with the names of Israel’s 12 tribes. The breastplate, also containing the tribal names, was bound to the ephod by an elaborate series of cords and chains (Ex 28:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish writers suggest various appearances for the ephod: (1) apronlike, covering the body from the chest to the heels; (2) enveloping the body only from the waist down, the upper body being covered by the breastplate; or (3) sleeved and jacketlike, with the middle of the breast uncovered so the breastplate could be inserted easily.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the Babylonian exile, the ephod served as a means of revelation from God, especially concerning military operations. Abiathar the priest brought the ephod into David’s camp on one occasion for consulting the Lord (1 Sm 23:6-9; 30:7). It is uncertain whether the priest donned or held the ephod whole, seeking counsel from the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, the ephod was often misused, as by Gideon (Jgs 8:27), Micah (17:5), and Jonathan, grandson of Moses (18:30; cf. vv 14, 17, 20). Either the garment itself or an image that represented God, on which the garment was placed, was worshiped as the people sought revelation in a manner condemned by God. Household idols (teraphim) were also associated with this ungodly practice (17:5; Hos 3:4).<\/p>\n<p>Besides the high priest, other priests wore an ephod for certain religious services (1 Sm 22:18), and even Samuel (2:18) and David (2 Sm 6:14) wore one. By the postexilic period, and perhaps as early as Solomon, the ephod was no longer consulted (Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65). There was no need for ephod or Urim revelation once there was the more complete revelation of the prophetic ministry promised by Moses (Dt 18:15-22). However, the high priest continued to wear this vestment until the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EPHOD (Garment)<\/h3>\n<p>Upper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests.<\/p>\n<p>Made of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarlet, and gold. At the upper end were attached two shoulder straps, each having an onyx stone inscribed with the names of Israel’s 12 tribes. The breastplate, also containing the tribal names, was bound to the ephod by an elaborate series of cords and chains (Ex 28:22-29).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish writers suggest various appearances for the ephod: (1) apronlike, covering the body from the chest to the heels; (2) enveloping the body only from the waist down, the upper body being covered by the breastplate; or (3) sleeved and jacketlike, with the middle of the breast uncovered so the breastplate could be inserted easily.<\/p>\n<p>Prior to the Babylonian exile, the ephod served as a means of revelation from God, especially concerning military operations. Abiathar the priest brought the ephod into David’s camp on one occasion for consulting the Lord (1 Sm 23:6-9; 30:7). It is uncertain whether the priest donned or held the ephod whole, seeking counsel from the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, the ephod was often misused, as by Gideon (Jgs 8:27), Micah (17:5), and Jonathan, grandson of Moses (18:30; cf. vv 14, 17, 20). Either the garment itself or an image that represented God, on which the garment was placed, was worshiped as the people sought revelation in a manner condemned by God. Household idols (teraphim) were also associated with this ungodly practice (17:5; Hos 3:4).<\/p>\n<p>Besides the high priest, other priests wore an ephod for certain religious services (1 Sm 22:18), and even Samuel (2:18) and David (2 Sm 6:14) wore one. By the postexilic period, and perhaps as early as Solomon, the ephod was no longer consulted (Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65). There was no need for ephod or Urim revelation once there was the more complete revelation of the prophetic ministry promised by Moses (Dt 18:15-22). However, the high priest continued to wear this vestment until the destruction of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EPHOD (Garment) Upper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests. Made of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarl...","summary_en":"EPHOD (Garment) Upper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests. Made of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarl...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20343,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"John the Baptist","title_en":"John the Baptist","content_ro":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\n<p>Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately <span>AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n<p>• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n<p>• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n<p>• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n<p>• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n<p>• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p>• The Disciples of John<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BirthInfancyandBoyhood\">Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n<p>Luke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>There existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\n<p>John’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, <span>nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AppearanceandIdentity\">Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n<p>Mark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, <span>niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\n<p>Who did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JohnsProclamation\">John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n<p>John’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\n<p>In light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JohnsBaptism\">John’s Baptism<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>What was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\n<p>Another precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\n<p>If John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JohnsViewofJesus\">John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>Throughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, <span>neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>In light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusViewofJohn\">Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n<p>That Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>John’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ArrestImprisonmentandMartyrdom\">Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p>To understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately <span>AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheDisciplesofJohn\">The Disciples of John<\/p>\n<p>While it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\n<p>We know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\n<p>After his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOHN THE BAPTIST<\/h3>\n<p>Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately <span>AD<\/span> 29, while Jesus was still ministering.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n<p>• Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n<p>• John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n<p>• John’s Baptism<\/p>\n<p>• John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>• Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n<p>• Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p>• The Disciples of John<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BirthInfancyandBoyhood\">Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood<\/p>\n<p>Luke’s Gospel is our only source of information concerning the birth and boyhood of John. The Gospel writer states that John was born in the hill country of Judah (Lk 1:39) of priestly descent, being the son of Zechariah, a priest of the order of Abijah, and Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron (v 5). Both parents were righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments closely (v 6). Like the birth of Jesus, only to a much lesser degree, the birth of John the Baptist is described in Luke as extraordinary. The angel Gabriel announced the coming birth to Zechariah in the temple; to the older, barren Elizabeth it came as an answer to prayer (vv 8-13). John’s name is announced to Zechariah by the angel, even as his purpose as forerunner is revealed before birth (vv 13-17). Such a consecration from birth is reminiscent of the call of the OT prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer 1:5).<\/p>\n<p>There existed some familial relationship between the families of John and Jesus. Elizabeth is described as a relative of Mary (Lk 1:36), which may connote cousin or aunt, or may only mean being from the same tribe.<\/p>\n<p>John’s childhood, as that of Jesus, is left quite vague in the Gospel account. All that is said is that “John grew up and became strong in spirit. Then he lived out in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel” (Lk 1:80, <span>nlt<\/span>). Some scholars have suggested that John might have been adopted as a boy by the Essenes (as was their practice) at Qumran and reared in their wilderness community, adjacent to the Dead Sea and near the Jordan River. There are some similarities between the activities of the Qumran sect, known through the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the later ministry of John the Baptist. Both practiced a type of asceticism and removed themselves from the life of Jerusalem. Both practiced baptism and associated this rite with initiation and repentance. Finally, John and the Qumran group were both eschatologically minded, awaiting God’s final end-time activity in history. Nevertheless, many significant differences exist between John and the Qumran sect.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AppearanceandIdentity\">Appearance and Identity<\/p>\n<p>Mark’s Gospel begins with an account of John the Baptist’s appearance: “John the Baptist . . . lived in the wilderness and was preaching that people should be baptized to show that they had turned from their sins and turned to God to be forgiven” (Mk 1:4, <span>nlt<\/span>). A rich OT background lies behind John’s association with the wilderness, in this case the wilderness of Judea. It was in the wilderness that God revealed himself to Moses (Ex 3), gave the law, and entered into the covenant with Israel (ch 19). It was also the site of refuge for David (1 Sm 23–26; Ps 63) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19), and in this light became the anticipated site of God’s future deliverance (Is 40:3-5; Ez 47:1-12; Hos 2:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The unusual dress of John the Baptist—“clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist” (Mk 1:6, <span>niv<\/span>)—may have suggested to his audience an association with Elijah in particular (2 Kgs 1:8) or with the prophets in general (Zec 13:4). His diet, “locusts and wild honey” (Mk 1:6), was Levitically clean, reflecting one who lived off the desert (such food was also eaten at Qumran) and formed part of the broader asceticism practiced by John and his disciples (Mt 9:14; 11:18).<\/p>\n<p>Who did John understand himself to be? In answer to questions by the multitude whether he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected prophet (Jn 1:20-23), John only identified himself as “a voice crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord’ ” (Is 40:3). The background for the question lies at the end of the OT period. Prophecy, on the one hand, was considered to have ceased (Zec 13:2-6); yet, on the other hand, it was expected to appear again before the coming of the messianic kingdom (see Jl 2:28-29; Mal 3:1-4). Some anticipated this final prophet to be one who was like Moses (Dt 18:15), others a returning Elijah as foretold in Malachi 4:5-6. While John personally refrained from identifying himself with these specific expectations (Jn 1:20-23), it is clear that his dress, lifestyle, and message caused the people to identify him with this end-time prophet (Mt 14:5; Mk 11:32). Jesus also saw John as this final “Elijah-like” prophet (Mt 11:7-15), who from Malachi’s prophecy was to be a forerunner to the coming of the Lord (Mal 3:1-4; 4:5-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JohnsProclamation\">John’s Proclamation<\/p>\n<p>John’s proclamation involved three elements: a warning of imminent judgment at the hands of the Coming One, a call for repentance in light of the coming kingdom of heaven, and a demand to express this repentance in concrete ethical terms. Many Jews looked forward confidently to the messianic judgment as a time of blessing for themselves and destruction for the gentile oppressors. John, however, warned that Jewish ancestry was false security in the coming judgment (Lk 3:8); true repentance was the only means of escaping destruction (Mt 3:2). John anticipated this judgment at the hands of the Coming One, who would baptize the nation with “the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Lk 3:16). Fire represented the OT means of destruction in the end time (Mal 4:1) as well as purification (Mal 3:1-4), while the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the end time connoted blessing (Is 32:15; Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28) and purification (Is 4:2-4). The judgment anticipated by John was therefore twofold: destruction for the unrepentant, and blessing for the penitent and righteous (Mt 3:12).<\/p>\n<p>In light of this imminent event John called for repentance on the part of his listeners (Mt 3:2), a true “turning back” or “turning toward” God in obedience that would bring forgiveness of sin. Such a turnabout in an individual’s relation with God should be lived out in one’s everyday dealings: fairness on the part of tax collectors (Lk 3:12-13) and soldiers (v 14), and the general requirement of compassion for the poor (vv 10-11).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JohnsBaptism\">John’s Baptism<\/p>\n<p>The Gospels record that John baptized those repentant of their sins at several locations: the Jordan River (Mk 1:5), Bethany beyond the Jordan (Jn 1:28), and Aenon near Salim (Jn 3:23). This practice was an integral part of John’s call for repentance, given in light of the approaching judgment and the appearance of the Coming One. The baptism of the penitent symbolized desire for forgiveness of sin, a renunciation of past life, and a desire to be included in the coming messianic kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>What was the background for John’s practice of baptism? From the OT we know of ceremonial lustrations or washings that guaranteed ritual purity (Lv 14–15; Nm 19). Unlike John’s baptism, these washings were repetitive in nature and referred predominantly to ritual rather than moral cleansing. The prophets, however, urged a moral purification associated with the washing of water (Is 1:16-18; Jer 4:14). More significantly, the prophets anticipated a cleansing by God in the end times preceding the Day of Judgment (Ez 36:25; Zec 13:1; cf. Is 44:3), an eschatological element that John may have assumed was being fulfilled in his water baptism.<\/p>\n<p>Another precedent for John’s practice may have been proselyte baptism, a rite (along with circumcision and the offering of sacrifices) that constituted the conversion of a Gentile to Judaism. Common to both proselyte baptism and John’s baptism were the emphasis on an ethical break with the past, a once-for-all character, and the similarity of immersion. Notable differences were that John’s baptism was for Jews, not Gentile converts, and that it had a marked eschatological character as a preparation for the new age. Unless John, in light of the imminence of the messianic age, consciously treated all Jews as “pagan” in need of a baptism of repentance (cf. Mt 3:7-10), it is doubtful that proselyte baptism formed the primary background for John’s baptismal ministry.<\/p>\n<p>If John’s baptism had a clear association with the forgiveness of sin, the question naturally arises as to why Jesus, the Son of God, sought baptism from John. John himself asks this very question of Jesus (Mt 3:14), to which Jesus responds, “It must be done, because we must do everything that is right” (v 15, <span>nlt<\/span>). First, it is clear that Jesus’ baptism represented an act of obedience on his part to God’s will as he saw it. Second, by submitting to the baptism of John, Jesus was clearly validating the ministry and message of John. The imminent coming of the kingdom and its Messiah, and the need for repentance in anticipation of this event that John proclaimed, were affirmed by Jesus through baptism. Third, by being baptized, Jesus condemned the self-righteous for their lack of repentance and took a stand with the penitent publicans and sinners awaiting the kingdom of God (Lk 7:29-30). Fourth, Jesus stepped forward for baptism not as an individual in need of forgiveness but as one who represented the people of God. His baptism, therefore, demonstrated solidarity with the people in their need of deliverance, even as he is judged in their place on the cross. Finally, the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11) and the descent of the Spirit (Lk 3:21-22) signify the inauguration of Jesus’ own ministry through his baptism by John.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JohnsViewofJesus\">John’s View of Jesus<\/p>\n<p>Throughout his ministry John pointed beyond himself to one “who is far greater than I am—so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave” (Mk 1:7, <span>nlt<\/span>). His self-understanding apparently sprang from the application of Isaiah 40:3 to himself, that he was the preparer or forerunner for God’s coming activity through the Messiah (Lk 3:4-6). When asked by curious spectators, John firmly denied that he was the Messiah, and according to the Gospel accounts, subordinated himself to the Coming One (Mk 1:7-8; Jn 1:26-28; 3:28-31). The coming of Jesus to baptism seems to represent the first time John identified these expectations with Jesus himself (Jn 1:35-36). His recognition of Jesus as the Messiah prior to baptism (Mt 3:14) was confirmed by the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven quoting a phrase from an OT messianic psalm (Mk 1:11a, from Ps 2:7), together with a phrase from a Suffering Servant song of Isaiah (Mk 1:11b, from Is 42:1). In the fourth Gospel, John the Baptist goes even further in acknowledging Jesus to be the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:29), in anticipation of Jesus’ sacrificial role on the cross. And John recognized him as “God’s Chosen One” (v 34, <span>neb<\/span>—another term for the Messiah; Ps 2:7, see Mk 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>In light of John’s strong affirmation, it is at first difficult to understand his questioning of Jesus while imprisoned: “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Mt 11:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). Some have suggested that John was merely asking for the sake of his disciples, or that the question reflected John’s despondency with being imprisoned. It is more likely, however, that the question represents John’s own confusion with the activity expected of the Messiah. John had proclaimed a Coming One who would bring a baptism of fire and judgment upon the wicked (Lk 3:16). It may have been difficult for him to understand Jesus’ different emphases on forgiveness and acceptance of sinners (Mt 9:9-13) and his healing of the sick (Mt 8–9). When John’s disciples brought their master’s question to Jesus, asking whether or not he was the Messiah, Jesus responded by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6 (see also Is 61:1). This text proclaims the activities of healing and proclaiming salvation to the poor to be fulfillments of the Messiah’s role, even though they may not have been what John or countless other Jews expected.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusViewofJohn\">Jesus’ View of John<\/p>\n<p>That Jesus highly regarded John the Baptist is indicated by his baptism by John. It is also explicitly stated on several occasions. Jesus called him the greatest man to have ever lived (Lk 7:28). (Of course, he was not as great as Jesus, the God-man.) Jesus also said that John was a burning and shining lamp (Jn 5:33-35) and that he practiced a baptism divinely ordained (Lk 20:1-8).<\/p>\n<p>John’s uniqueness, however, lies in the fact that he stood at the turning of the ages. He was the last of the old era, the period of the law and the prophets (Lk 16:16), which was to precede the coming of the messianic age (the kingdom of God). John was the last of the prophets, the greatest of them, the Elijah figure who would prepare the way for the judgment of God (Mt 11:13-15; Lk 1:17). Because John belonged to the era of the law and the prophets, however, he was not as great as the “least” already in the kingdom of God (Mt 11:11)—that is, those who belonged to the era of the kingdom’s appearance in Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ArrestImprisonmentandMartyrdom\">Arrest, Imprisonment, and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p>To understand why John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas, one has to grasp the messianic excitement caused by John’s appearance and message (Lk 3:15-18). Herod and other secular rulers were obviously suspicious of anyone who might stir up the crowds with predictions of a coming messianic ruler. Other messianic movements had arisen before John, which resulted in outbreaks of violence against the Roman-Herodian rulership. Moreover, Herod Antipas was under heavy criticism for his marriage with Herodias, the ex-wife of his brother Philip. His first marriage, with the daughter of Aretus II, constituted a political alliance between the Herodian family and the Nabatean kingdom of Perea. His new relationship with Herodias was perceived as a breach of the political alliance and led to friction between the two families. John’s denunciation of Herod’s new marriage (Mt 14:3-12) could thus have been interpreted by Herod as a subversive rousing of sentiment against his authority. The Jewish historian Josephus states that Herod did, in fact, arrest John because he feared John’s influence over the crowds. According to Josephus, John was imprisoned at the fortress Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. That he was not killed immediately was due to Herod’s personal fear of the righteous John (Mk 6:2) and of the people’s reaction (Mt 14:5). On a point about which Josephus is silent, the Gospels record that it was Herodias’s feelings against John (Mk 6:17) and her plot, through the dancing of her daughter, which brought about the beheading of John (vv 21-29). John was beheaded at Herodias’s request in approximately <span>AD<\/span> 29 or 30.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheDisciplesofJohn\">The Disciples of John<\/p>\n<p>While it is clear that a band of disciples formed around John in his lifetime (Jn 1:35), to suggest that he intended to begin a continuing movement is contradicted by his message on the imminent Day of Judgment. Apparently, John’s disciples consisted of a small group of those who had been baptized by him and were awaiting the coming Messiah. Some transferred their loyalty to Jesus after John had identified Jesus as the Coming One (Jn 1:37). Others, however, apparently stayed on with their teacher, communicating with the imprisoned John concerning the activities of Jesus (Lk 7:18-23) and, after his death, taking the body for burial (Mk 6:29).<\/p>\n<p>We know little about the activities and practices of the band of disciples clustered around John. We do know, however, that fasting was one practice specifically associated with the group, and one that marked them as similar to the Pharisees (Mt 9:14). In this practice they no doubt followed the example of John himself (Lk 7:33). Prayer and fasting were often linked in late Judaism. The disciples of John were also known for the prayers taught by their master (11:1). Seeing this practice, the disciples of Jesus asked the Lord to teach them to pray, to which Jesus responded with the Lord’s Prayer (vv 2-4).<\/p>\n<p>After his death it is likely that other disciples of John joined the followers of Jesus (see Lk 7:29-30). Not all did so, however, as disciples of John were encountered by Paul and other Christians approximately 25 years later in Ephesus (Acts 18:24–29:7). Upon hearing witness to Jesus, these followers of John proclaimed Jesus as Messiah. When Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus they received the Holy Spirit (19:4-7). Even so, it is apparent from later documents that various groups continued to honor John, even considering him the Messiah, centuries after the NT period.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","summary_en":"JOHN THE BAPTIST Forerunner of the Messiah who prepared the people for Jesus’ coming, proclaimed the need for forgiveness of sins, and offered a baptism symbolizing repentance. His ministry included the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River, where he testified to Jesus being the Expected One from God. John was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas in approximately AD 29, while Jesus was still ministering. Preview • Birth, Infancy, and Boyhood • Appearance and Identity • John’s Proclamation • ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30520,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plagues upon Egypt","title_en":"Plagues upon Egypt","content_ro":"<h3>PLAGUES UPON EGYPT<\/h3>\n<p>Unprecedented series of disasters striking Egypt, probably culminating in spring or early summer (c. 1400 <span>BC<\/span>). They struck particularly the Nile Delta, although apparently not affecting the area called Goshen. These disasters were of such magnitude that the Egyptians from their earliest history could recall nothing like them (Ex 9:24).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Plagues<\/p>\n<p>• Pharaoh and the Plagues<\/p>\n<p>• The Nature of the Plagues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePlagues\">The Plagues<\/p>\n<p>The plagues are described in Exodus 7–11. At first sight one might imagine that the plagues took place in succession within a few weeks, but casual notes of time (see 7:25; 9:31-32), as well as the nature of some of the plagues, would suggest that several months may well have been involved. The first plague was the turning of water into blood (7:20), so that the fish died and the water stank. Next came a plague of frogs (8:6); even after their death, the land was strewn with piles of their bodies (v 14). Next came a plague of lice (v 17), or possibly gnats, sandflies, or mosquitoes. The exact sense of the word is not clear, but it obviously means some small irritating creature. After that came “swarms of flies” (v 24). Again, the meaning is not quite clear. Later Jewish tradition made it swarms of wild beasts, but flies is a much more likely sense. Then some sort of cattle plague struck (9:3), affecting the domestic animals. After that came boils on humans (v 9), boils that erupted into painful blisters and vesicles, apparently irritating rather than fatal. Hail followed (v 18), so severe that nothing like it had been seen before—hail associated with thunder and lightning (v 24). This was so heavy that it could be fatal (v 19), and naturally did great harm to the crops of Egypt (v 31). After that came locusts in vast numbers (10:13)—again on an unparalleled scale. Then came three days of complete darkness (v 22) that brought Egyptian life to a standstill. Finally, all the firstborn of the Egyptians died (12:29)—from Pharaoh’s household down to the lowliest homes in the land.<\/p>\n<p>All the plagues are seen in the Bible as successive judgments of God. Normally, each is preceded by a warning from Moses, which is disregarded by Pharaoh, and then each is lifted as a result of temporary repentance on the part of Pharaoh. But it is also clear that the plagues gradually increase in severity and intensity, until the climax comes in the death of the firstborn—with that, even Pharaoh is broken. The first plagues represent discomfort rather than danger for the Egyptians; then their animals and crops are struck down; finally death takes the firstborn, the flower of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>There are certain common features that run through the account of the plagues. At first, Pharaoh’s magicians try to belittle the plagues, and the signs that precede them, by producing similar effects themselves (7:11-12; 8:7). This is an interesting warning that miracles may be produced from various sources and that this sort of sign is therefore not important in itself. But the time comes when the magicians are beaten and can no longer compete (8:18); even they admit that this is God’s hand (v 19). When the plague of boils comes, the magicians cannot even present themselves before Pharaoh, so bad is their condition. After that, the magicians disappear from the story.<\/p>\n<p>Another motif that becomes increasingly clear as the account of the plagues continues, is the increasing emphasis on the way in which God’s people, living in Goshen, were delivered from the plagues that affected the Egyptians. It could be assumed anyway that, as Goshen was not on the Nile, the water that turned to blood and the plague of frogs and mosquitoes might affect them less. But in the case of the later swarms of flies (8:22), the cattle plague (9:4), the hail (v 26), and the darkness (10:23), we are specifically told that Israel was spared; in the case of the death of the firstborn, the Lord “passed over” Israelite homes.<\/p>\n<p>At first, it seems as if the hearts of all the Egyptians are just as hard as that of the pharaoh (7:13). Yet as the story goes on, his own people keep urging him to yield to God. The magicians admit God’s role in the plague of lice (8:19). Pharaoh’s servants who heeded God’s warning through Moses brought their servants and cattle indoors before the great hailstorms, and thus escaped loss and death (9:20). Only the unbelieving suffered. Finally, Pharaoh’s own servants exhorted him to let Israel go, bluntly telling him that the land was being ruined by his stubbornness (10:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PharaohandthePlagues\">Pharaoh and the Plagues<\/p>\n<p>Pharaoh’s reaction to God’s word is remarkable. Scripture describes the hardness of Pharoah’s heart in three ways. Exodus 7:3 speaks of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart; 7:14 has the neutral statement that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened; and 8:15 has Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Obviously, these all refer to the same process, which must be taken into account in any explanation. Furthermore, Paul must be allowed to have the last word on the matter (Rom 9:18).<\/p>\n<p>But, within this theological framework, there is quite a movement, not merely a succession of shallow repentances designed to secure the removal of the plague, and then a renewed stubbornness, calling down a fresh judgment. There is also a typically Asian bargaining session between Pharaoh and Moses. After Pharaoh’s broken promises to let the people go (8:8), he tries to bargain: the people should sacrifice to God in Egypt, without going at all (v 25); only the men should go (10:11); they should all go, but leave their flocks and herds as hostage (v 24). But there can be no bargaining of this sort in response to the call of God, as Pharaoh was to learn. After the death of the firstborn, he was glad to see the Israelites leave (12:31-33).<\/p>\n<p>In this sense, the whole story of the plagues is a struggle. It has sometimes been seen as the struggle of the prototype prophet, Moses (Dt 18:15), against the prototype king, Pharaoh; while it may be that, it is far more. It is the struggle of Moses, the servant of God, against the magicians. It is the struggle of Moses against mighty Pharaoh, or rather, the confrontation of Pharaoh by God, in the form of the word brought by his servant. At the deepest level, it is a victory won by God over the false gods of Egypt. This gives to many of the stories their peculiar relish. For the Nile is the god Hapi; Hept the frog is a god of fertility and childbirth; Ra the sun (outraged by the darkness) is a god; Hat-hot had the form of a heifer, and Apis that of a bull; the flying hornet symbolized Egypt; and Pharaoh himself was a god. Yet all were helpless before the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNatureofthePlagues\">The Nature of the Plagues<\/p>\n<p>It is not known how God brought about the plagues, and some may think it vain even to ask, since God is free to use whatever means he pleases. Yet the statement that God turned back the waters of the “Reed Sea” by a strong east wind (Ex 14:21) indicates that God could use natural means to bring about his will. The Hebrew concept of “miracle” was not the same as the modern one, which usually regards miracles as “supernatural” and sees all else as “natural” and thus as nonmiraculous. The Hebrews, however, regarded everything in nature as the work of God; it was only that in certain instances he had acted more “wonderfully” (perhaps one would say more “obviously”) than others. Therefore, there is nothing in any way rationalistic in saying that on this occasion God may have sent a series of “natural” disasters (the sort of disasters to which Egypt was geographically prone) but so heightened them—and sent them in such rapid succession—that they constituted miracles.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the explanations of this sort assume a year of unusual climatic conditions, and in particular, a variation in the annual rise of the Nile. For instance, either an exceptionally low rise of the Nile (leading to red and muddy water) or an exceptionally high rise of the Nile (bringing down red earth from the Ethiopian highlands) have been suggested as explanations of the first plague. If one feels that the description “turned into blood” would be satisfied by thick blood-colored water, then either would be satisfactory. Another attractive suggestion is the multiplication of red plankton in the water. This phenomenon is fairly common across the world, especially in tropical and subtropical areas. This would make the likeness to blood much closer. In either of these cases, death of fish in foul water, and migration of frogs from the river would be understandable. If the Nile was flooding more widely than usual, the plague of frogs would be even more understandable. Some have seen the sudden death of the frogs as due to some type of internal anthrax; and, with piles of stinking frogs’ bodies in the fields, the way was laid wide open both for the carriers of the plagues (flies, etc.) and the plagues that followed.<\/p>\n<p>The next plague, for instance, was one of mosquitoes, sandflies, gnats, or possibly lice. At least the first and the last are potent carriers of disease, and all would cause irritant sores by their bites. The flooding of the stagnant waters of the Nile would give perfect breeding conditions for mosquitoes in particular.<\/p>\n<p>If we are right in assuming that the swarms that followed were swarms of flies, then everything would fit into a divine pattern. Piles of dead frogs, piles of rubbish strewn over the land by the flood (including, no doubt, raw sewage), foul and muddied Nile waters—this would be a prime breeding place for flies. Further, Jewish interpreters suggest that the flies in question were biting or stinging flies (like our gadflies or horseflies). Perhaps these were the agents of the disease of the cattle. Modern interpreters have suggested a particular type of fly, still known in the area, which multiplies very rapidly amid rotting vegetation. The flies and the dust (9:9) between them could have produced that dreaded tropical scourge “prickly heat,” easily becoming infected.<\/p>\n<p>Again, in the providence of God, if the Israelites were not in the Delta area, nor actually living along the Nile itself, but concentrated in the Wadi Tumilat to the east, they would be spared these plagues—a fact that did not escape Pharaoh’s notice (9:7). The miracle thus lay in God’s overruling providence, using his world and its geographic and climatic conditions to do his work of judgment on the stubborn-hearted.<\/p>\n<p>Hail, accompanied by violent thunderstorms (9:24), would be easily explicable (although rare in Egypt), especially in the “funnel” conditions of the Nile Valley, surrounded by hot, dry desert on either side. As to the severity of the hail (more common in Palestine), there are biblical parallels (Jos 10:11). With this plague there is a valuable note of time, given incidentally (Ex 9:31-32) in connection with the crops destroyed by the hail.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of the plague of locusts, God’s use of the elements of nature is made plain in the text, where an “east wind” brings them and a “sea wind” takes them away (10:13, 19). The “plague” here is both the enormous number of locusts (see Jl 1:1-12 for another illustration of this scourge) and the timing of their arrival. There are many other places in the OT where the precision of God’s timing is shown and where indeed the miraculous element lies in the timing of the event.<\/p>\n<p>The locusts may have darkened the land with their numbers (Ex 10:15), but that was nothing compared with the three days of darkness that followed. Most commentators are agreed that this is the dreaded <em>khamsin,<\/em> the hot desert wind bringing dust storms or sandstorms that fill the sky and may last for days without respite. If the red earth from the Ethiopian highlands had been brought down by the floodwaters of the Nile and deposited widely over the land, some commentators have suggested that it was whipped into the air by this wind, thus giving an even darker pall over the land.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of the last plague, the death of the firstborn, we have no indication of what, if any, particular disease was used by God. Scripture gives us no clue. What can be said is that the Egyptians suffered but the Israelites did not. After this plague, they were free. Henceforth, it was their glad knowledge that none of “the plagues of Egypt” would strike them as God’s people (15:26). It was their unshakable belief that these plagues were God’s judgment, a punishment on stubborn Pharaoh, but the means of their salvation. Therefore, the plagues are not only a warning to us but also an encouragement. <em>See<\/em> Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, Book of; Moses; Plague.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PLAGUES UPON EGYPT<\/h3>\n<p>Unprecedented series of disasters striking Egypt, probably culminating in spring or early summer (c. 1400 <span>BC<\/span>). They struck particularly the Nile Delta, although apparently not affecting the area called Goshen. These disasters were of such magnitude that the Egyptians from their earliest history could recall nothing like them (Ex 9:24).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Plagues<\/p>\n<p>• Pharaoh and the Plagues<\/p>\n<p>• The Nature of the Plagues<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePlagues\">The Plagues<\/p>\n<p>The plagues are described in Exodus 7–11. At first sight one might imagine that the plagues took place in succession within a few weeks, but casual notes of time (see 7:25; 9:31-32), as well as the nature of some of the plagues, would suggest that several months may well have been involved. The first plague was the turning of water into blood (7:20), so that the fish died and the water stank. Next came a plague of frogs (8:6); even after their death, the land was strewn with piles of their bodies (v 14). Next came a plague of lice (v 17), or possibly gnats, sandflies, or mosquitoes. The exact sense of the word is not clear, but it obviously means some small irritating creature. After that came “swarms of flies” (v 24). Again, the meaning is not quite clear. Later Jewish tradition made it swarms of wild beasts, but flies is a much more likely sense. Then some sort of cattle plague struck (9:3), affecting the domestic animals. After that came boils on humans (v 9), boils that erupted into painful blisters and vesicles, apparently irritating rather than fatal. Hail followed (v 18), so severe that nothing like it had been seen before—hail associated with thunder and lightning (v 24). This was so heavy that it could be fatal (v 19), and naturally did great harm to the crops of Egypt (v 31). After that came locusts in vast numbers (10:13)—again on an unparalleled scale. Then came three days of complete darkness (v 22) that brought Egyptian life to a standstill. Finally, all the firstborn of the Egyptians died (12:29)—from Pharaoh’s household down to the lowliest homes in the land.<\/p>\n<p>All the plagues are seen in the Bible as successive judgments of God. Normally, each is preceded by a warning from Moses, which is disregarded by Pharaoh, and then each is lifted as a result of temporary repentance on the part of Pharaoh. But it is also clear that the plagues gradually increase in severity and intensity, until the climax comes in the death of the firstborn—with that, even Pharaoh is broken. The first plagues represent discomfort rather than danger for the Egyptians; then their animals and crops are struck down; finally death takes the firstborn, the flower of the nation.<\/p>\n<p>There are certain common features that run through the account of the plagues. At first, Pharaoh’s magicians try to belittle the plagues, and the signs that precede them, by producing similar effects themselves (7:11-12; 8:7). This is an interesting warning that miracles may be produced from various sources and that this sort of sign is therefore not important in itself. But the time comes when the magicians are beaten and can no longer compete (8:18); even they admit that this is God’s hand (v 19). When the plague of boils comes, the magicians cannot even present themselves before Pharaoh, so bad is their condition. After that, the magicians disappear from the story.<\/p>\n<p>Another motif that becomes increasingly clear as the account of the plagues continues, is the increasing emphasis on the way in which God’s people, living in Goshen, were delivered from the plagues that affected the Egyptians. It could be assumed anyway that, as Goshen was not on the Nile, the water that turned to blood and the plague of frogs and mosquitoes might affect them less. But in the case of the later swarms of flies (8:22), the cattle plague (9:4), the hail (v 26), and the darkness (10:23), we are specifically told that Israel was spared; in the case of the death of the firstborn, the Lord “passed over” Israelite homes.<\/p>\n<p>At first, it seems as if the hearts of all the Egyptians are just as hard as that of the pharaoh (7:13). Yet as the story goes on, his own people keep urging him to yield to God. The magicians admit God’s role in the plague of lice (8:19). Pharaoh’s servants who heeded God’s warning through Moses brought their servants and cattle indoors before the great hailstorms, and thus escaped loss and death (9:20). Only the unbelieving suffered. Finally, Pharaoh’s own servants exhorted him to let Israel go, bluntly telling him that the land was being ruined by his stubbornness (10:7).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PharaohandthePlagues\">Pharaoh and the Plagues<\/p>\n<p>Pharaoh’s reaction to God’s word is remarkable. Scripture describes the hardness of Pharoah’s heart in three ways. Exodus 7:3 speaks of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart; 7:14 has the neutral statement that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened; and 8:15 has Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Obviously, these all refer to the same process, which must be taken into account in any explanation. Furthermore, Paul must be allowed to have the last word on the matter (Rom 9:18).<\/p>\n<p>But, within this theological framework, there is quite a movement, not merely a succession of shallow repentances designed to secure the removal of the plague, and then a renewed stubbornness, calling down a fresh judgment. There is also a typically Asian bargaining session between Pharaoh and Moses. After Pharaoh’s broken promises to let the people go (8:8), he tries to bargain: the people should sacrifice to God in Egypt, without going at all (v 25); only the men should go (10:11); they should all go, but leave their flocks and herds as hostage (v 24). But there can be no bargaining of this sort in response to the call of God, as Pharaoh was to learn. After the death of the firstborn, he was glad to see the Israelites leave (12:31-33).<\/p>\n<p>In this sense, the whole story of the plagues is a struggle. It has sometimes been seen as the struggle of the prototype prophet, Moses (Dt 18:15), against the prototype king, Pharaoh; while it may be that, it is far more. It is the struggle of Moses, the servant of God, against the magicians. It is the struggle of Moses against mighty Pharaoh, or rather, the confrontation of Pharaoh by God, in the form of the word brought by his servant. At the deepest level, it is a victory won by God over the false gods of Egypt. This gives to many of the stories their peculiar relish. For the Nile is the god Hapi; Hept the frog is a god of fertility and childbirth; Ra the sun (outraged by the darkness) is a god; Hat-hot had the form of a heifer, and Apis that of a bull; the flying hornet symbolized Egypt; and Pharaoh himself was a god. Yet all were helpless before the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheNatureofthePlagues\">The Nature of the Plagues<\/p>\n<p>It is not known how God brought about the plagues, and some may think it vain even to ask, since God is free to use whatever means he pleases. Yet the statement that God turned back the waters of the “Reed Sea” by a strong east wind (Ex 14:21) indicates that God could use natural means to bring about his will. The Hebrew concept of “miracle” was not the same as the modern one, which usually regards miracles as “supernatural” and sees all else as “natural” and thus as nonmiraculous. The Hebrews, however, regarded everything in nature as the work of God; it was only that in certain instances he had acted more “wonderfully” (perhaps one would say more “obviously”) than others. Therefore, there is nothing in any way rationalistic in saying that on this occasion God may have sent a series of “natural” disasters (the sort of disasters to which Egypt was geographically prone) but so heightened them—and sent them in such rapid succession—that they constituted miracles.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the explanations of this sort assume a year of unusual climatic conditions, and in particular, a variation in the annual rise of the Nile. For instance, either an exceptionally low rise of the Nile (leading to red and muddy water) or an exceptionally high rise of the Nile (bringing down red earth from the Ethiopian highlands) have been suggested as explanations of the first plague. If one feels that the description “turned into blood” would be satisfied by thick blood-colored water, then either would be satisfactory. Another attractive suggestion is the multiplication of red plankton in the water. This phenomenon is fairly common across the world, especially in tropical and subtropical areas. This would make the likeness to blood much closer. In either of these cases, death of fish in foul water, and migration of frogs from the river would be understandable. If the Nile was flooding more widely than usual, the plague of frogs would be even more understandable. Some have seen the sudden death of the frogs as due to some type of internal anthrax; and, with piles of stinking frogs’ bodies in the fields, the way was laid wide open both for the carriers of the plagues (flies, etc.) and the plagues that followed.<\/p>\n<p>The next plague, for instance, was one of mosquitoes, sandflies, gnats, or possibly lice. At least the first and the last are potent carriers of disease, and all would cause irritant sores by their bites. The flooding of the stagnant waters of the Nile would give perfect breeding conditions for mosquitoes in particular.<\/p>\n<p>If we are right in assuming that the swarms that followed were swarms of flies, then everything would fit into a divine pattern. Piles of dead frogs, piles of rubbish strewn over the land by the flood (including, no doubt, raw sewage), foul and muddied Nile waters—this would be a prime breeding place for flies. Further, Jewish interpreters suggest that the flies in question were biting or stinging flies (like our gadflies or horseflies). Perhaps these were the agents of the disease of the cattle. Modern interpreters have suggested a particular type of fly, still known in the area, which multiplies very rapidly amid rotting vegetation. The flies and the dust (9:9) between them could have produced that dreaded tropical scourge “prickly heat,” easily becoming infected.<\/p>\n<p>Again, in the providence of God, if the Israelites were not in the Delta area, nor actually living along the Nile itself, but concentrated in the Wadi Tumilat to the east, they would be spared these plagues—a fact that did not escape Pharaoh’s notice (9:7). The miracle thus lay in God’s overruling providence, using his world and its geographic and climatic conditions to do his work of judgment on the stubborn-hearted.<\/p>\n<p>Hail, accompanied by violent thunderstorms (9:24), would be easily explicable (although rare in Egypt), especially in the “funnel” conditions of the Nile Valley, surrounded by hot, dry desert on either side. As to the severity of the hail (more common in Palestine), there are biblical parallels (Jos 10:11). With this plague there is a valuable note of time, given incidentally (Ex 9:31-32) in connection with the crops destroyed by the hail.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of the plague of locusts, God’s use of the elements of nature is made plain in the text, where an “east wind” brings them and a “sea wind” takes them away (10:13, 19). The “plague” here is both the enormous number of locusts (see Jl 1:1-12 for another illustration of this scourge) and the timing of their arrival. There are many other places in the OT where the precision of God’s timing is shown and where indeed the miraculous element lies in the timing of the event.<\/p>\n<p>The locusts may have darkened the land with their numbers (Ex 10:15), but that was nothing compared with the three days of darkness that followed. Most commentators are agreed that this is the dreaded <em>khamsin,<\/em> the hot desert wind bringing dust storms or sandstorms that fill the sky and may last for days without respite. If the red earth from the Ethiopian highlands had been brought down by the floodwaters of the Nile and deposited widely over the land, some commentators have suggested that it was whipped into the air by this wind, thus giving an even darker pall over the land.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of the last plague, the death of the firstborn, we have no indication of what, if any, particular disease was used by God. Scripture gives us no clue. What can be said is that the Egyptians suffered but the Israelites did not. After this plague, they were free. Henceforth, it was their glad knowledge that none of “the plagues of Egypt” would strike them as God’s people (15:26). It was their unshakable belief that these plagues were God’s judgment, a punishment on stubborn Pharaoh, but the means of their salvation. Therefore, the plagues are not only a warning to us but also an encouragement. <em>See<\/em> Egypt, Egyptian; Exodus, Book of; Moses; Plague.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PLAGUES UPON EGYPT Unprecedented series of disasters striking Egypt, probably culminating in spring or early summer (c. 1400 BC). They struck particularly the Nile Delta, although apparently not affecting the area called Goshen. These disasters were of such magnitude that the Egyptians from their earliest history could recall nothing like them (Ex 9:24). Preview • The Plagues • Pharaoh and the Plagues • The Nature of the Plagues The Plagues The plagues are described in Exodus 7–11. At first s...","summary_en":"PLAGUES UPON EGYPT Unprecedented series of disasters striking Egypt, probably culminating in spring or early summer (c. 1400 BC). They struck particularly the Nile Delta, although apparently not affecting the area called Goshen. These disasters were of such magnitude that the Egyptians from their earliest history could recall nothing like them (Ex 9:24). Preview • The Plagues • Pharaoh and the Plagues • The Nature of the Plagues The Plagues The plagues are described in Exodus 7–11. At first s...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31663,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33668,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Samaritans","title_en":"Samaritans","content_ro":"<h3>SAMARITANS<\/h3>\n<p>Schismatic group from the Jews. The group resided north of Judea and south of Galilee in hostile tension with its Jewish neighbors. Jesus’ attitude toward this despised group radically contrasted with contemporary sentiment.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Origins of the Sect<\/p>\n<p>• Relations between the Samaritans and the Jews<\/p>\n<p>• Samaritan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>• Jesus and the Samaritans<\/p>\n<p>• Samaria in the Mission of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginsoftheSect\">Origins of the Sect<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to determine precisely when the Samaritan sect arose and when the final break with Judaism occurred. The OT conception of the origin of the Samaritan sect is that they stemmed from repopulated foreign peoples whose worship of God was only a veneer for underlying idolatry. According to 2 Kings 17, the Samaritan sect arose from the exchange of peoples following Israel’s defeat by Assyria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. Removing the Israelites from the land, the king of Assyria repopulated the area with conquered peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, and various other nations.<\/p>\n<p>The Samaritans offer a vastly different interpretation of their origin. They claim descent from the Jewish tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (see Jn 4:12) and hold that the exile of Israelites in 722 <span>BC<\/span> by Assyria was neither full-scale nor permanent. To account for the mutual hostility that developed between their group and the Jews, the Samaritan version holds that the Jews were guilty of apostasy, setting up heretical sanctuaries during the time of Eli, rather than staying with the only holy place on Mt Gerizim. The Samaritans therefore considered themselves true Israelites in descent and worship.<\/p>\n<p>From Assyrian records of this period, an exchange of population is in fact affirmed for the northern kingdom, but apparently a total deportation was not carried out (see 2 Chr 34:9). This would suggest that there were two elements in the land: first, the native Israelite remnant not exiled; and second, the foreign exiles who were gradually won over to the faith of the native residents, although syncretism no doubt existed during the early period of assimilation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RelationsbetweentheSamaritansandtheJews\">Relations between the Samaritans and the Jews<\/p>\n<p>The history of relations between the Samaritans—situated on the north around Mt Gerizim (their holy mountain), Shechem, and Samaria—and Jewish populations in Judea and then later in Galilee is one of fluctuating tensions. The ancient tension between the northern and southern kingdoms was revived with the return of exiles to Jerusalem under the Persian ruler Cyrus’s edict (c. 538 <span>BC<\/span>). The entire southern area was at the time being governed from Samaria in the north by Sanballat, a native ruler of Palestine under Persian authority. The return of exiles to Jerusalem, particularly with their intentions of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple, posed an obvious political threat to his leadership in the north (Ezr 4:7-24; Neh 4:1-9).<\/p>\n<p>Opposition was at first politically motivated but became religious when sometime later, possibly in the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>, a rival temple was erected on Mt Gerizim. An example of Jewish hostility toward the Samaritans about this time comes from Ecclesiasticus 50:25-26 (written approximately 200 <span>BC<\/span>), where the Samaritans are placed below the Edomites and Philistines in esteem and are termed a “foolish people” (cf. Test. Levi 7:2).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish disregard for the Samaritans was increased by the Samaritans’ lack of resistance to Antiochus Epiphanes’ campaign (c. 167 <span>BC<\/span>) to promote Hellenistic worship in the area. While part of the Jewish community resisted the transforming of the Jerusalem temple to a temple for Zeus (1 Macc 1:62-64) and eventually followed the Maccabees in revolt (1 Macc 2:42-43), sources suggest that the Samaritans did not (see 1 Macc 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>Poor relations came to a climax during the brief period of Jewish independence under the Hasmoneans, when the Jewish ruler, John Hyrcanus, marched against Shechem, conquering and destroying the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim (c. 128 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Under Herod the Great, Samaria’s fortunes improved, although animosity still continued between the Samaritans and Jews in Judea and Galilee. Holding the Jerusalem temple to be a false cultic center, and excluded from the inner courts by the Jerusalem authorities, a group of Samaritans desecrated the Jerusalem temple in approximately <span>AD<\/span> 6 by spreading human bones within the temple porches and sanctuary during Passover. Hostility toward Galilean Jews traveling through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem for various feasts was also not uncommon (Lk 9:51-53).<\/p>\n<p>This animosity continued in Jesus’ day. Both groups excluded the other from their respective cultic centers, the Jerusalem temple and the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim. The Samaritans, for example, were forbidden access to the inner courts of the temple, and any offering they might give was considered as if it were from a Gentile. Thus, although probably more accurately defined as “schismatics,” it appears Samaritans were in practice treated as Gentiles. All marriage between the groups was therefore forbidden, and social relations were greatly restricted (Jn 4:9). With such proscribed separation, it is not surprising that any interaction between the two groups was strained. The mere term Samaritan was one of contempt on the lips of Jews (8:48), and among some scribes it possibly would not even be uttered (see the apparent circumlocution in Lk 10:37). The disciples’ reaction to the Samaritan refusal of lodging (9:51-55) is a good example of the animosity felt by Jews for Samaritans at the time.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is less evidence for similar attitudes from the Samaritan side, we can assume they existed. It is probable to speculate, therefore, that the Samaritan shunning of hospitality in Luke 9:51-55 was not uncommon toward other Jews whose “face was set toward Jerusalem.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SamaritanBeliefs\">Samaritan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>The main beliefs of the Samaritans demonstrate both the close affinities with and obvious divergences from mainstream Judaism. They held in common with Judaism a strong monotheistic faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In contrast, however, there was an elevating of Mt Gerizim in the north as the only holy place for sacrifice, based on several divergent passages in Deuteronomy and Exodus in the Samaritan text. Mt Gerizim came to be identified with the site of Abel’s first altar (Gn 4:4), the site of Noah’s sacrifice after the Flood (8:20), the meeting place of Abraham and Melchizedek (14:18), the site of Isaac’s intended sacrifice (ch 22), and many other associations.<\/p>\n<p>The Samaritans held only the first five biblical books (Pentateuch) to be inspired and based their dogma and practice exclusively on these books. Such a narrow canon not only determined the direction of Samaritan theology but further separated them from contemporary Jewish thought. Moses, for example, was more highly exalted by the Samaritans than by the Jews. He was considered not only the chief prophet but also, in later thought, was described as the choicest of men, preexisting from Creation, interceding with God for Israel, and being to man “the light of the world.” The messianic hope of Samaritan theology also reflects this narrow canon. A Messiah from the house of David could not be anticipated, as no evidence for such could be found in the Pentateuch. Rather, the Samaritans awaited a “prophet like Moses” based on Deuteronomy 18:15-18. This anticipated prophet was also designated the “Taheb,” the Restorer, for he would in the last days restore proper cultic worship on Mt Gerizim and bring the worship of the heathen to that site.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear, therefore, that it was primarily the claim of supremacy for Mt Gerizim that separated this group theologically and culturally from their Jewish neighbors.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusandtheSamaritans\">Jesus and the Samaritans<\/p>\n<p>The common Jewish perspective on Samaritans as being nearly Gentile was evidently held to some extent by Jesus as well. Jesus refers to the Samaritan leper as “this foreigner” (Lk 17:18) and prohibits his disciples, during their commissioning, from taking the message of the kingdom to either the Samaritans or the Gentiles (Mt 10:5).<\/p>\n<p>Yet the overwhelming evidence in the Gospels is that Jesus’ attitude toward the Samaritans differed radically from that of his Jewish contemporaries. When his disciples display the usual Jewish animosity in asking to have the “fire of judgment” rain down upon the inhospitable Samaritans, Jesus “rebuked them” (Lk 9:55). Moreover, he did not refuse to heal the Samaritan leper but honored him as the only one of the ten who remembered to give glory to God (17:11-19). So also in the parable of the Good Samaritan (10:30-37) Jesus clearly breaks through the traditional prejudices in portraying the despised Samaritan, not the respected Jewish priest or Levite, as the true neighbor to the man in need. Here as elsewhere, Jesus, in confronting his audience with God’s demand, breaks through traditional definitions of “righteous” and “outcast.”<\/p>\n<p>John 4:4-43 records not only the fascinating exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman but also Jesus’ subsequent two-day stay in the town of Sychar, a Samaritan city. Here we see Jesus not only risking ritual uncleanness by contact with the Samaritan woman at the well (vv 7-9) but also offering the gift of salvation to her (v 10) and the entire Samaritan town (vv 39-41). Through Jesus’ knowledge of her marital life (vv 16-18), the woman concludes he must be a “prophet.” Remembering that the Samaritans were expecting a “prophet like Moses” in the last days, it is possible that the woman was wondering if Jesus was their long-awaited prophetic Messiah (vv 19, 25-26). Jesus not only breaks through the rigid animosity of Jews toward Samaritans by doing the unthinkable in staying with this despised people, but he also accepts their faith in him as “Messiah” (v 26) and “Savior of the world” (v 42). Here, as with his association with the outcasts of Jewish society, Jesus redefines righteousness not according to descent or religious practice but according to faith in himself. In so doing, he shatters the racial and cultural distinctions of his day and lays the foundation for the gospel’s subsequent spread to the entire gentile world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SamariaintheMissionoftheEarlyChurch\">Samaria in the Mission of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p>In the great commission given prior to his ascension, Jesus told his disciples to take the gospel to Samaria (Acts 1:8). The missionary activity of the early church did indeed include this region. When, following the martyrdom of Stephen, many Christians were forced to leave Jerusalem (8:1), one such Christian, Philip, spread the gospel in the city of Samaria (v 5). The response was so great to the miracles performed that Peter and John (representing the apostles in Jerusalem) were sent to investigate and to confirm the presence of the Holy Spirit among them. Evidence from the second century <span>AD<\/span> suggests, however, that Christianity did not gain a strong foothold among the Samaritans. For the most part, the Samaritans retained their own religion. A small remnant of the Samaritan sect continues to exist to this day, living near Mt Gerizim (Shechem) and in various cities in Israel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament); Samaria.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMARITANS<\/h3>\n<p>Schismatic group from the Jews. The group resided north of Judea and south of Galilee in hostile tension with its Jewish neighbors. Jesus’ attitude toward this despised group radically contrasted with contemporary sentiment.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Origins of the Sect<\/p>\n<p>• Relations between the Samaritans and the Jews<\/p>\n<p>• Samaritan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>• Jesus and the Samaritans<\/p>\n<p>• Samaria in the Mission of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginsoftheSect\">Origins of the Sect<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to determine precisely when the Samaritan sect arose and when the final break with Judaism occurred. The OT conception of the origin of the Samaritan sect is that they stemmed from repopulated foreign peoples whose worship of God was only a veneer for underlying idolatry. According to 2 Kings 17, the Samaritan sect arose from the exchange of peoples following Israel’s defeat by Assyria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. Removing the Israelites from the land, the king of Assyria repopulated the area with conquered peoples from Babylon, Cuthah, and various other nations.<\/p>\n<p>The Samaritans offer a vastly different interpretation of their origin. They claim descent from the Jewish tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (see Jn 4:12) and hold that the exile of Israelites in 722 <span>BC<\/span> by Assyria was neither full-scale nor permanent. To account for the mutual hostility that developed between their group and the Jews, the Samaritan version holds that the Jews were guilty of apostasy, setting up heretical sanctuaries during the time of Eli, rather than staying with the only holy place on Mt Gerizim. The Samaritans therefore considered themselves true Israelites in descent and worship.<\/p>\n<p>From Assyrian records of this period, an exchange of population is in fact affirmed for the northern kingdom, but apparently a total deportation was not carried out (see 2 Chr 34:9). This would suggest that there were two elements in the land: first, the native Israelite remnant not exiled; and second, the foreign exiles who were gradually won over to the faith of the native residents, although syncretism no doubt existed during the early period of assimilation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"RelationsbetweentheSamaritansandtheJews\">Relations between the Samaritans and the Jews<\/p>\n<p>The history of relations between the Samaritans—situated on the north around Mt Gerizim (their holy mountain), Shechem, and Samaria—and Jewish populations in Judea and then later in Galilee is one of fluctuating tensions. The ancient tension between the northern and southern kingdoms was revived with the return of exiles to Jerusalem under the Persian ruler Cyrus’s edict (c. 538 <span>BC<\/span>). The entire southern area was at the time being governed from Samaria in the north by Sanballat, a native ruler of Palestine under Persian authority. The return of exiles to Jerusalem, particularly with their intentions of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple, posed an obvious political threat to his leadership in the north (Ezr 4:7-24; Neh 4:1-9).<\/p>\n<p>Opposition was at first politically motivated but became religious when sometime later, possibly in the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>, a rival temple was erected on Mt Gerizim. An example of Jewish hostility toward the Samaritans about this time comes from Ecclesiasticus 50:25-26 (written approximately 200 <span>BC<\/span>), where the Samaritans are placed below the Edomites and Philistines in esteem and are termed a “foolish people” (cf. Test. Levi 7:2).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish disregard for the Samaritans was increased by the Samaritans’ lack of resistance to Antiochus Epiphanes’ campaign (c. 167 <span>BC<\/span>) to promote Hellenistic worship in the area. While part of the Jewish community resisted the transforming of the Jerusalem temple to a temple for Zeus (1 Macc 1:62-64) and eventually followed the Maccabees in revolt (1 Macc 2:42-43), sources suggest that the Samaritans did not (see 1 Macc 6:2).<\/p>\n<p>Poor relations came to a climax during the brief period of Jewish independence under the Hasmoneans, when the Jewish ruler, John Hyrcanus, marched against Shechem, conquering and destroying the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim (c. 128 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Under Herod the Great, Samaria’s fortunes improved, although animosity still continued between the Samaritans and Jews in Judea and Galilee. Holding the Jerusalem temple to be a false cultic center, and excluded from the inner courts by the Jerusalem authorities, a group of Samaritans desecrated the Jerusalem temple in approximately <span>AD<\/span> 6 by spreading human bones within the temple porches and sanctuary during Passover. Hostility toward Galilean Jews traveling through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem for various feasts was also not uncommon (Lk 9:51-53).<\/p>\n<p>This animosity continued in Jesus’ day. Both groups excluded the other from their respective cultic centers, the Jerusalem temple and the Samaritan temple on Mt Gerizim. The Samaritans, for example, were forbidden access to the inner courts of the temple, and any offering they might give was considered as if it were from a Gentile. Thus, although probably more accurately defined as “schismatics,” it appears Samaritans were in practice treated as Gentiles. All marriage between the groups was therefore forbidden, and social relations were greatly restricted (Jn 4:9). With such proscribed separation, it is not surprising that any interaction between the two groups was strained. The mere term Samaritan was one of contempt on the lips of Jews (8:48), and among some scribes it possibly would not even be uttered (see the apparent circumlocution in Lk 10:37). The disciples’ reaction to the Samaritan refusal of lodging (9:51-55) is a good example of the animosity felt by Jews for Samaritans at the time.<\/p>\n<p>Although there is less evidence for similar attitudes from the Samaritan side, we can assume they existed. It is probable to speculate, therefore, that the Samaritan shunning of hospitality in Luke 9:51-55 was not uncommon toward other Jews whose “face was set toward Jerusalem.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SamaritanBeliefs\">Samaritan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>The main beliefs of the Samaritans demonstrate both the close affinities with and obvious divergences from mainstream Judaism. They held in common with Judaism a strong monotheistic faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In contrast, however, there was an elevating of Mt Gerizim in the north as the only holy place for sacrifice, based on several divergent passages in Deuteronomy and Exodus in the Samaritan text. Mt Gerizim came to be identified with the site of Abel’s first altar (Gn 4:4), the site of Noah’s sacrifice after the Flood (8:20), the meeting place of Abraham and Melchizedek (14:18), the site of Isaac’s intended sacrifice (ch 22), and many other associations.<\/p>\n<p>The Samaritans held only the first five biblical books (Pentateuch) to be inspired and based their dogma and practice exclusively on these books. Such a narrow canon not only determined the direction of Samaritan theology but further separated them from contemporary Jewish thought. Moses, for example, was more highly exalted by the Samaritans than by the Jews. He was considered not only the chief prophet but also, in later thought, was described as the choicest of men, preexisting from Creation, interceding with God for Israel, and being to man “the light of the world.” The messianic hope of Samaritan theology also reflects this narrow canon. A Messiah from the house of David could not be anticipated, as no evidence for such could be found in the Pentateuch. Rather, the Samaritans awaited a “prophet like Moses” based on Deuteronomy 18:15-18. This anticipated prophet was also designated the “Taheb,” the Restorer, for he would in the last days restore proper cultic worship on Mt Gerizim and bring the worship of the heathen to that site.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear, therefore, that it was primarily the claim of supremacy for Mt Gerizim that separated this group theologically and culturally from their Jewish neighbors.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusandtheSamaritans\">Jesus and the Samaritans<\/p>\n<p>The common Jewish perspective on Samaritans as being nearly Gentile was evidently held to some extent by Jesus as well. Jesus refers to the Samaritan leper as “this foreigner” (Lk 17:18) and prohibits his disciples, during their commissioning, from taking the message of the kingdom to either the Samaritans or the Gentiles (Mt 10:5).<\/p>\n<p>Yet the overwhelming evidence in the Gospels is that Jesus’ attitude toward the Samaritans differed radically from that of his Jewish contemporaries. When his disciples display the usual Jewish animosity in asking to have the “fire of judgment” rain down upon the inhospitable Samaritans, Jesus “rebuked them” (Lk 9:55). Moreover, he did not refuse to heal the Samaritan leper but honored him as the only one of the ten who remembered to give glory to God (17:11-19). So also in the parable of the Good Samaritan (10:30-37) Jesus clearly breaks through the traditional prejudices in portraying the despised Samaritan, not the respected Jewish priest or Levite, as the true neighbor to the man in need. Here as elsewhere, Jesus, in confronting his audience with God’s demand, breaks through traditional definitions of “righteous” and “outcast.”<\/p>\n<p>John 4:4-43 records not only the fascinating exchange between Jesus and the Samaritan woman but also Jesus’ subsequent two-day stay in the town of Sychar, a Samaritan city. Here we see Jesus not only risking ritual uncleanness by contact with the Samaritan woman at the well (vv 7-9) but also offering the gift of salvation to her (v 10) and the entire Samaritan town (vv 39-41). Through Jesus’ knowledge of her marital life (vv 16-18), the woman concludes he must be a “prophet.” Remembering that the Samaritans were expecting a “prophet like Moses” in the last days, it is possible that the woman was wondering if Jesus was their long-awaited prophetic Messiah (vv 19, 25-26). Jesus not only breaks through the rigid animosity of Jews toward Samaritans by doing the unthinkable in staying with this despised people, but he also accepts their faith in him as “Messiah” (v 26) and “Savior of the world” (v 42). Here, as with his association with the outcasts of Jewish society, Jesus redefines righteousness not according to descent or religious practice but according to faith in himself. In so doing, he shatters the racial and cultural distinctions of his day and lays the foundation for the gospel’s subsequent spread to the entire gentile world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SamariaintheMissionoftheEarlyChurch\">Samaria in the Mission of the Early Church<\/p>\n<p>In the great commission given prior to his ascension, Jesus told his disciples to take the gospel to Samaria (Acts 1:8). The missionary activity of the early church did indeed include this region. When, following the martyrdom of Stephen, many Christians were forced to leave Jerusalem (8:1), one such Christian, Philip, spread the gospel in the city of Samaria (v 5). The response was so great to the miracles performed that Peter and John (representing the apostles in Jerusalem) were sent to investigate and to confirm the presence of the Holy Spirit among them. Evidence from the second century <span>AD<\/span> suggests, however, that Christianity did not gain a strong foothold among the Samaritans. For the most part, the Samaritans retained their own religion. A small remnant of the Samaritan sect continues to exist to this day, living near Mt Gerizim (Shechem) and in various cities in Israel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament); Samaria.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMARITANS Schismatic group from the Jews. The group resided north of Judea and south of Galilee in hostile tension with its Jewish neighbors. Jesus’ attitude toward this despised group radically contrasted with contemporary sentiment. Preview • Origins of the Sect • Relations between the Samaritans and the Jews • Samaritan Beliefs • Jesus and the Samaritans • Samaria in the Mission of the Early Church Origins of the Sect It is difficult to determine precisely when the Samaritan sect arose an...","summary_en":"SAMARITANS Schismatic group from the Jews. The group resided north of Judea and south of Galilee in hostile tension with its Jewish neighbors. Jesus’ attitude toward this despised group radically contrasted with contemporary sentiment. Preview • Origins of the Sect • Relations between the Samaritans and the Jews • Samaritan Beliefs • Jesus and the Samaritans • Samaria in the Mission of the Early Church Origins of the Sect It is difficult to determine precisely when the Samaritan sect arose an...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39675,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments","title_en":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments","content_ro":"<h3>Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments<\/h3>\n<p>For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies.<\/p>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td><p class=\"td\"\/><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>Old Testament Prophecies<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>New Testament Fulfillment<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Micah 5:2<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 2:1-6<\/p><p>Luke 2:1-20<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 7:14<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 1:18-25<\/p><p>Luke 1:26-38<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 7:40<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 4. Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Zechariah 9:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 21:1-9<\/p><p>John 12:12-16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 5. Messiah was to be rejected by his own people<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:1, 3<\/p><p>Psalm 118:22<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:3-4<\/p><p>John 12:37-43<\/p><p>Acts 4:1-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 6. Messiah was to be betrayed by one of his followers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 41:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:14-16, 47-50<\/p><p>Luke 22:19-23<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 7. Messiah was to be tried and condemned<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Luke 23:1-25<\/p><p>Matthew 27:1-2<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 8. Messiah was to be silent before his accusers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:7<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:12-14<\/p><p>Mark 15:3-4<\/p><p>Luke 23:8-10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 9. Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 50:6<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:67; 27:30<\/p><p>Mark 14:65<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>10. Messiah was to be mocked and insulted<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:7-8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:39-44<\/p><p>Luke 23:11, 35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>11. Messiah was to die by crucifixion<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:14, 16-17<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:31<\/p><p>Mark 15:20, 25<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>12. Messiah was to suffer with criminals and pray for his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:38<\/p><p>Mark 15:27, 28<\/p><p>Luke 23:32-34<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>13. Messiah was to be given vinegar<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 69:21<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:34<\/p><p>John 19:28-30<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>14. Others were to cast lots for Messiah’s garments<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:18<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:35<\/p><p>John 19:23-24<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>15. Messiah’s bones were not to be broken<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Exodus 12:46<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 19:31-36<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>16. Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 10-12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 1:29; 11:49-52<\/p><p>Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>17. Messiah was to be raised from the dead<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 16:10<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 28:1-10<\/p><p>Acts 2:22-32<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>18. Messiah is now at God’s right hand<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 110:1<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mark 16:19<\/p><p>Luke 24:50-51<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<h3>Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments<\/h3>\n<p>For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies.<\/p>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td><p class=\"td\"\/><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>Old Testament Prophecies<\/strong><\/p><\/td>\n <td><p><strong>New Testament Fulfillment<\/strong><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Micah 5:2<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 2:1-6<\/p><p>Luke 2:1-20<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 7:14<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 1:18-25<\/p><p>Luke 1:26-38<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 7:40<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 4. Messiah was to enter Jerusalem in triumph<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Zechariah 9:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 21:1-9<\/p><p>John 12:12-16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 5. Messiah was to be rejected by his own people<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:1, 3<\/p><p>Psalm 118:22<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:3-4<\/p><p>John 12:37-43<\/p><p>Acts 4:1-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 6. Messiah was to be betrayed by one of his followers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 41:9<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:14-16, 47-50<\/p><p>Luke 22:19-23<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 7. Messiah was to be tried and condemned<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Luke 23:1-25<\/p><p>Matthew 27:1-2<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 8. Messiah was to be silent before his accusers<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:7<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:12-14<\/p><p>Mark 15:3-4<\/p><p>Luke 23:8-10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p> 9. Messiah was to be struck and spat on by his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 50:6<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 26:67; 27:30<\/p><p>Mark 14:65<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>10. Messiah was to be mocked and insulted<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:7-8<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:39-44<\/p><p>Luke 23:11, 35<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>11. Messiah was to die by crucifixion<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:14, 16-17<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:31<\/p><p>Mark 15:20, 25<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>12. Messiah was to suffer with criminals and pray for his enemies<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:38<\/p><p>Mark 15:27, 28<\/p><p>Luke 23:32-34<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>13. Messiah was to be given vinegar<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 69:21<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:34<\/p><p>John 19:28-30<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>14. Others were to cast lots for Messiah’s garments<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 22:18<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 27:35<\/p><p>John 19:23-24<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>15. Messiah’s bones were not to be broken<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Exodus 12:46<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 19:31-36<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>16. Messiah was to die as a sacrifice for sin<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 10-12<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>John 1:29; 11:49-52<\/p><p>Acts 10:43; 13:38, 39<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>17. Messiah was to be raised from the dead<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 16:10<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Matthew 28:1-10<\/p><p>Acts 2:22-32<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td><p>18. Messiah is now at God’s right hand<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Psalm 110:1<\/p><\/td>\n <td><p>Mark 16:19<\/p><p>Luke 24:50-51<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies. Old Testament Prophecies New Testament Fulfillment  1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1-6Luke 2:1-20  2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25Luke 1:26-38  3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses Deuterono...","summary_en":"Messianic Prophecies and Fulfillments For the Gospel writers, one of the main reasons for believing in Jesus was the way his life fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah. Following is a list of some of the main prophecies. Old Testament Prophecies New Testament Fulfillment  1. Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1-6Luke 2:1-20  2. Messiah was to be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25Luke 1:26-38  3. Messiah was to be a prophet like Moses Deuterono...","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45080,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","summary_en":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72706,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","summary_en":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100332,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","summary_en":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127958,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:15","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:15<\/strong> <em>A prophet like me<\/em> would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be <em>from among your fellow Israelites<\/em> (literally <em>from among your brothers<\/em>), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel <em>must listen.<\/em> Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament identifies Jesus as this prophet (Acts 3:18-26).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","summary_en":"18:15 A prophet like me would be beyond the ordinary because Moses was without peer among the prophets (see 34:10-11). This prophet would be from among your fellow Israelites (literally from among your brothers), and Israel was required to listen to him (18:19). The prophets of Old Testament Israel would partially fulfill the function of God’s spokesman to whom Israel must listen. Later, Judaism looked for this prophet as a major messianic figure (see John 1:21; 6:14; 7:40); the New Testament...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":65694,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Suffering Prophet","title_en":"The Suffering Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","summary_en":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":93320,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Suffering Prophet","title_en":"The Suffering Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","summary_en":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120946,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Suffering Prophet","title_en":"The Suffering Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","summary_en":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":148572,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Suffering Prophet","title_en":"The Suffering Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Suffering Prophet<\/h3>\n<p>Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15.<\/p>\n<p>As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were identifying him as a prophet (Matt 16:13-14). And the disciples on the Emmaus road identified him as “a prophet who did powerful miracles” and “a mighty teacher” (Luke 24:19).<\/p>\n<p>Like other prophets, Jesus suffered for his testimony (cp. 1 Kgs 19:1-18; Jer 11:18-19; 18:18; 20:1-2, 7-18; 26:7-11, 20-23; 38:1-6). While the people linked Jesus’ prophetic office to his miracles and teaching, Jesus connected it especially to his suffering. At Nazareth, he affirmed that “no prophet is accepted in his own hometown” (Luke 4:24), and he later accused Israel’s leaders of murdering their prophets (11:47-51). As he journeyed to Jerusalem, he exclaimed, “It wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (13:33).<\/p>\n<p>In the Old Testament, when Israel did not heed God’s prophets, divine judgment followed. Similarly, God’s people would face judgment if they did not listen to Jesus (see Acts 3:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>Just as the revelation that Jesus is the Messiah confirms that he is the Savior for all people, so his role as prophet confirms that his message comes from God, and his words are the authentic word of God, which must be heard and obeyed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 18:15; Matt 5:12; 23:34-37; Luke 4:22-24; 6:23, 26; 7:16; 11:47-52; 13:33-34; 24:17-21; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","summary_en":"The Suffering Prophet Jesus is described by many titles in the Gospels, including Messiah, Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, and Lord. In Luke, a key title is “Prophet.” Jesus was the prophet that Moses predicted in Deut 18:15. As a prophet, Jesus preached God’s word and performed miracles like those of the great Old Testament prophets. When Jesus raised a widow’s son, the people cried out, “A mighty prophet has risen among us” (Luke 7:16). The disiples reported to Jesus that people were ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":31680,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":25427,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Messiah","title_en":"Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Title derived from the Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiach<\/span><em>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashach<\/span><em>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Concluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century <span>AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheOldTestament\">Messiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>Among Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (<em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>While later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\n<p>While the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\n<p>The nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as <span>AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>While the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheNewTestament\">Messiah in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\n<p>Family genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\n<p>The messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MESSIAH<\/h3>\n<p>Title derived from the Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiach<\/span><em>,<\/em> a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">christos<\/span> (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashach<\/span><em>)<\/em> conveys this idea as well.<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). While there is evidence for a literal anointing of prophets (1 Kgs 19:16), this does not appear to have been a standard practice. The anointing of Saul and David by Samuel established the act as a significant prerequisite for Hebrew kings before they assumed their positions of royal leadership. The king was especially considered to be the Lord’s anointed and as such was viewed to hold a secure position before men (1 Sm 12:14; 2 Sm 19:21) and God (Pss 2:2; 20:6). Along with numerous messianic prophecies, these proceedings helped inform the Jews of the Anointed One, par excellence, who would eventually come to bring salvation to Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Concluding the 13 articles of Hebraic faith attributed to Moses Maimonides (13th century <span>AD<\/span>) is the statement still found in many Hebrew prayer books: “I believe with a perfect heart that the Messiah will come; and although his coming be delayed, I will still wait patiently for his speedy appearance.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheOldTestament\">Messiah in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Jewish hope for the advent of the Messiah developed dynamically from the period of David’s reign, when it was prophesied that his kingdom would endure to the end of time (2 Sm 7:16). Israel was told that, through David’s descendants, his throne would exert a never-ending dominion over all the earth (2 Sm 22:48-51; Jer 33). It is with this aspect of messianic salvation that Jewish minds have traditionally been preoccupied (cf. Acts 1:6).<\/p>\n<p>Among Orthodox rabbis there has never been a lack of conjecture respecting the details of the Messiah’s ministry. At one time the rabbis applied no less than 456 passages of Scripture to his person and salvation. Preoccupation with the Messiah is evident in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> (Babylonian Talmud), where passages state that the world was created for him and that all the prophets prophesied of his days (<em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, 99a). By and large, Orthodoxy still retains its time-worn belief in the Messiah’s reign in Jerusalem, the rebuilding of the temple, and the reestablishment of both priesthood and sacrifice.<\/p>\n<p>While later Judaism looked for the Messiah as an eschatological figure who will reign at the end of time, modern Jewish thought has largely jettisoned the traditional notion of a personal Messiah in favor of belief in a messianic age. Prevalent liberal Judaism envisions the world ultimately perfected through the influence of the twin Judaic ideals of justice and compassion. Such conviction, ignoring the plight of fallen humans and the teaching of Scripture, substitutes humanistic thinking for miraculous heavenly intervention.<\/p>\n<p>While the Messiah’s origin is linked firmly to the house of David (2 Sm 7:14; Hos 3:5), the promise for a Messiah was given long before David lived. In fact, the hope for the Messiah is implicit in the first promise of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Addressed to Satan, Genesis 3:15 declares that God will place hostility between the serpent and the woman until, in the fullness of time, the “seed” of the woman inflicts a fatal blow to the head of the serpent.<\/p>\n<p>The nature of messianic prophecy is progressive; each prophecy casts more light on the subject. This occurs, for example, respecting the concept of the “seed”: Messiah is to be born of a woman (Gn 3:15), through the line of Shem (9:26) and specifically through Abraham (22:18). Yet even as late as Genesis 22:18, the “seed” is not clearly presented as a person, since <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">zerah<\/span> (seed) may indicate a singular or plural object. Still less apparent in these early stages of messianic prophecy is the nature of the “bruising” that is to occur. Yet the idea of the Messiah being crushed for sin is implicit in the Genesis pronouncement, as is the violence associated with that act. Chief among the messianic prophets, Isaiah gives full range to the axiom that the Anointed One must endure extensive suffering (Is 53:1). Under the figure “the Servant of the Lord,” four “servant songs” delineate the mission of the future deliverer (Is 42:1-7; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13–53:12). While it is true that Isaiah does not explicitly link the title Messiah with the Servant of the Lord, identifying both figures as one and the same person is justifiable. Both figures are uniquely anointed (61:1); each brings light to the Gentiles (55:4; cf. 49:6); neither is pretentious in his first appearance (7:14-15; 11:1; cf. 42:3; 53:1); and the title of Davidic “branch” rests upon them both (11:1-4). Equally significant are the dual facts of their humiliation and exaltation (49:7; 52:13-15). Jewish scholars of the early Christian era in the Aramaic Targum on the prophets paraphrase Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant Messiah” and begin Isaiah 53, “Behold my Servant Messiah will prosper.” While Cyrus may be spoken of as “anointed,” no final salvific work is attributed to him (45:1-5). Israel, although elect and loved by God (41:8), is ill-equipped as God’s servant to bring his redeeming work to mankind (42:18). The collapse of David’s dynasty points eloquently to Israel’s need for an anointed monarch who will heal the apostasy and disobedience (Ex 33:5; Hos 4:1). More and more, OT history presents Israel’s comprehensive moral failure. Her problem, which she shares with mankind, can only be solved by the making of a covenant whose surety and focal point is both a personal Savior and sovereign Lord (Jer 31:31-34). The advent of such a champion lives in the recorded promise of a shoot from the stump of Jesse’s fallen tree, who will bring the light of life to God’s benighted people (Is 9:2; 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to get away from the idea that the concept of servanthood and lowliness belongs within the sphere of royalty (Zec 9:9). The concept of the Messiah filling the complementary offices of priest and king is incontrovertible (Ps 110:1-4); a suffering priest-king is far less obvious. Some among the Talmudic writers apparently recognized the likelihood that the Messiah would have to suffer. In the Babylonian Talmud, tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> 98b, the Messiah is said to bear sicknesses and pain. Among the prayers for the Day of Atonement may be found the words of Eleazar ben Qalir (perhaps as late as <span>AD<\/span> 1000): “Our righteous Messiah has departed from us; we are horror-stricken, and there is none to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he carries, and is wounded for our transgressions. He bears on his shoulders our sins to find pardon for our iniquities. May we be healed by his stripes.” In a similar vein Rabbi Eliyya de Vidas writes, “The meaning of ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities,’ is that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whosoever will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for them himself.” For all this, it is highly doubtful that anyone imagined the Messiah would accomplish his salvational work by means of his own death (cf. Is 53:12). When rabbinic speculation failed to satisfactorily harmonize the paradoxical facts of humiliation and exaltation, some hypothesized that God would send a Messiah to suffer as well as a Messiah to reign. Biblically, it is evident that the Anointed One’s terrible ordeal of suffering is but the necessary prelude to infinite glory. He is pictured not only as a great king (52:13; 53:12) but also as humble (53:2), humiliated (52:14), rejected (53:3), and bearing the consequences of mankind’s rebellion (vv 5-6). Yet he is raised up to intercede for, and richly bless, his people (v 12). The Messiah, having accomplished that full obedience that Adam and Israel failed to achieve, will bring Israel and the nations back to God (42:18-19; 49:3, 6).<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Daniel contain important messianic data. Daniel is unique in that he boldly speaks of “Messiah the Prince” (Dn 9:25), identifies him as the “Son of Man” (7:13), and says he suffers (“cut off,” 9:26). This statement of the cutting off (i.e., death) of the Messiah makes possible his work of atonement (9:24). The doctrine of a vicarious substitutionary atonement is the only doctrine of atonement found in the Bible (cf. Lv 17:11). Israel understood that to bear sin meant enduring the consequences, or penalty, for sin (cf. Nm 14:33). The same penal substitution is evident in the working principle of the Messiah’s atoning sacrifice. He is the victim’s substitute to whom is transferred the suffering due the sinner. The penalty having been thus borne vicariously, the suppliant is fully pardoned.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 22:1 records the plaintive cry of the Messiah bearing man’s penalty for sin (cf. Mt 27:46) as he becomes sin on behalf of his people (2 Cor 5:21). Yet his cry, “My God,” indicates an intimate relationship that cannot be radically severed. Once again the motif of messianic humiliation prior to great exaltation is in view (Ps 22:27). In the so-called “royal psalms” (e.g., 2; 72; 110) it is the priestly intercessor who is also ordained to function as monarch and judge.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah brings the portrait a step further. The one who will enable humans to enter into a salvational covenant with God conveys God’s imputed righteousness: the Messiah, God’s righteous branch, becomes “the Lord our Righteousness.” Paradoxically, under the law no one could be crucified who was not guilty of sin (Dt 21:22). But it is Christ the righteous one who was crucified, thereby forever undermining any supposed legalistic confidence (Dt 21:23; Gal 3:13). More than forgiven, believers are deemed righteous in him (Jer 23:5-6).<\/p>\n<p>While the birthplace of the Messiah was well established (Mi 5:2), his deity was a hotly contested matter. Although few in ancient Israel disputed the belief in a superhuman Messiah, it is doubtful that anyone imagined him to be “God with us” in the fullest sense of the expression (cf. Heb 1:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MessiahintheNewTestament\">Messiah in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT writers present the picture that he who was the child of supernatural origins (Is 7:14; Mi 5:2) carried the full weight of divinity (Is 9:6; Phil 2:6; Col 1:19). He is the Son of God, worthy to receive the worship of all people (Ps 45:6-7; cf. Heb 1:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Jews of first-century Palestine knew that the messianic promise would be fulfilled in the coming of one like Moses (Dt 18:18). Parallels between Jesus and Moses are abundant. As mediators, innovators, and propagators of new phases of spiritual life for the people, they are unexcelled. Specifically, both are miraculously spared in infancy (Ex 2; Mt 2:13-23); both renounce a royal court for the sake of serving the people of God (Phil 2:5-8; Heb 11:24-28); both exhibit intense compassion for others (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36); both commune “face to face” with God (Ex 34:29-30; 2 Cor 3:7); and each mediates a covenant of redemption (Dt 29:1; Heb 8:6-7). But, as Luther observes, “Christ is no Moses.” In the final analysis Moses is but a household servant; the Messiah is the maker and master of all things (Heb 3:3-6; cf. Jn 1:1-2, 18).<\/p>\n<p>Family genealogies are important in Scripture. Rabbis agreed upon the absolute necessity of the Messiah’s Davidic lineage based on Hosea 3:5 and Jeremiah 30:9. The angelic announcement immediately establishes the correct lineage for Jesus (Lk 1:32-33; cf. 2:4), as does Matthew’s (Mt 1:1-17). The Lukan list, like that of Matthew, sets forth the exclusive kingly descent verifying Jesus as Messiah (Lk 3:23-38). Although variations occur between the two genealogies, there is a firm solidarity emphasizing an ancestry within the unique messianic stock. Fully aware of the messianic focus of Scripture (Jn 5:46; 8:56), Jesus acknowledged himself to be the Christ on numerous occasions. He accepted the title from blind Bartimaeus (Mk 10:46-48); from the crowds when he entered Jerusalem (Mt 21:9); from the children at the temple (v 15); and in other contexts as well (Mt 16:16-18; Mk 14:61-62; Lk 4:21; Jn 4:25-26). Nonetheless, he warned his disciples not to broadcast his mighty acts as Messiah prior to his resurrection (Mt 17:9; cf. Lk 9:20-21). Owing to the commonly held (but false) notion that the Messiah’s role was primarily that of a political liberator, Jesus actually avoided use of that term and preferred to identify himself as “the Son of Man.” It was by no means assumed that both designations referred to the same person (cf. Mk 14:61-62). Borrowing essentially from Daniel’s vision of a heavenly conqueror (Dn 7:13-14), Jesus consistently employed this less-known title and filled it with the true character and scope of messianic salvation. Jesus’ teaching in this regard enabled his disciples to correct their erroneous views concerning his mission (Mt 16:21-23). In the fullness of time they would come to see him not only as Messiah but also as the theme of the entire OT (Mt 5:17; Lk 24:27, 44; Jn 5:39; cf. Heb 10:7). When Jesus expounded the Scriptures beginning with the Torah (Lk 24:27), he did so as the living exegesis of God, the Word made flesh (Jn 1:14, 18). Legitimate messianic exposition is found in a host of texts, such as Psalms 2; 16; 22; 40; 110; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; 11:1; 40:10-11; 50:6; 52:13–53:12; 61:1; 63:1-6; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:23; 37:25; Daniel 9:24-27; Hosea 11:1; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 9:9; 11:13; 12:10; 13:7; Malachi 3:1; 4:2.<\/p>\n<p>The messiahship of Jesus is firmly proclaimed by all four evangelists (Mt 1:1; Mk 1:1; Lk 24:26; Jn 20:31). Peter on Pentecost, Philip before the Ethiopian eunuch, and Apollos in open debate all argue convincingly that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 2:36; 8:35; 28:28). Peter says he was “made” both Lord and Christ (2:36), signifying that the resurrection rightfully confirms him as such. Similarly, the apostle Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection as a patent declaration of his inalienable right to the title (Rom 1:4). For the ex-Pharisee and former persecutor of the church, “Jesus the Christ” is the very heart and soul of Paul’s preaching. Nothing is worthy to be compared to the glory of the Messiah; everything pales by comparison (Phil 3:5-10). The apostle’s all-consuming passion is for others to know the fullness of God in the person of his only Son (Eph 3:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Holy Spirit in Scripture speaks of Jesus with wide-ranging appellatives—Holy One, Judge, Righteous One, King, Son of God, and Lord—but these are not exhaustive. In him all the lines of messianic prediction converge; he is the touchstone whereby their validity is firmly established. The Lord Jesus Christ is himself the heart and substance of that covenant through which sinful people may be reconciled to a holy God (Is 42:6; Jn 14:6). That Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, God incarnate, exhaustively fulfills prophecy, type, and symbol—all shadows of his coming. Therefore, all should trust in him, the source of all grace, the only abiding treasure (Mt 12:21; Jn 1:16-17; Col 2:3). Anointed as prophet, he leads us into all truth (Jn 6:14; 7:16); as priest he intercedes for us (Heb 7:21); and as king he reigns over us (Phil 2:9-10).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Branch; Christology; Jesus Christ, Life and Teachings of; Redeemer, Redemption; Son of God; Son of Man.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","summary_en":"MESSIAH Title derived from the Hebrew, mashiach, a verbal adjective meaning “anointed one.” Along with its NT equivalent, christos (Christ), it refers to an act of consecration whereby an individual is set apart to serve God and then anointed with oil. The verbal root (mashach) conveys this idea as well. Israel’s practice of ceremonially anointing with oil is present in several contexts. Priests were regularly anointed prior to their divinely given service at the altar of sacrifice (Lv 4:3). ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31476,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophecy","title_en":"Prophecy","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\n<p>Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheOldTestament\">Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>One of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The <span>Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the <span>Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the <span>Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>Further insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>Dreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n<p>More frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the <span>Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The <em>words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he <em>saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (<span>rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>All prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century <span>BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\n<p>The ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>This kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofOldTestamentProphets\">Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>There are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\n<p>The <span>Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“O Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>“Don’t say that,” the <span>Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\n<p>The second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\n<p>In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the <span>Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessageoftheProphets\">The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheNewTestament\">Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\n<p>While the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\n<p>Among the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\n<p>The beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRoleoftheChristianProphet\">The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p>Christian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>According to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>We know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHECY<\/h3>\n<p>Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheOldTestament\">Prophecy in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>One of the clearest and most significant statements on the nature of prophetic inspiration in the OT is found in Numbers 12:6-8: “The <span>Lord<\/span> said to them, ‘Now listen to me! Even with prophets, I the <span>Lord<\/span> communicate by visions and dreams. But that is not how I communicate with my servant Moses. He is entrusted with my entire house. I speak to him face to face, directly and not in riddles! He sees the <span>Lord<\/span> as he is’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Several important insights into the nature of prophetic inspiration are found in this passage: (1) The prophetic gift of Moses was unique in that he alone received revelations directly from God. (2) Ordinarily, prophetic revelation was received through the medium of a dream or a vision. (3) The meaning of prophetic revelation is not always completely clear; prophecy is sometimes ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>Further insight into the nature of prophetic revelation is found in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I [God] will raise up for them a prophet like you [Moses] from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (<span>rsv<\/span>). While this passage is of interest because Jesus was identified as “the prophet like Moses” who came in fulfillment of this prediction (Acts 3:22; 7:37), the more immediate historical reference is to the succession of prophets that guided Israel from Joshua to Malachi. The phrase “I will put my words in his mouth” refers to the process of divine inspiration and is reminiscent of the common OT prophetic formula “the word of the Lord came to [such and such a prophet]” (for examples, see 1 Sm 15:10; 2 Sm 24:11; 1 Kgs 19:9; Jon 1:1; Hg 1:1; 2:1, 20; Zec 7:1, 8; 8:1). A true prophet is one who speaks (or repeats) all that God has told him.<\/p>\n<h5>Modes of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>Dreams were a commonly recognized mode of inspiration throughout the ancient world, though they were more highly regarded in Greece than in ancient Israel. Revelatory dreams in the Bible fall into two major categories: (1) dreams whose meaning is self-evident, and (2) symbolic dreams that usually require the expertise of an interpreter of dreams. Both types normally involve both visual and auditory elements. In those dreams whose meaning is self-evident, normally a supernatural being (God or an angel) appears to the dreamer and speaks to him or her in a straightforward manner.<\/p>\n<p>More frequently, revelatory dreams have symbolic elements that require interpretation. The two great dream interpreters of the OT are Joseph and Daniel; the latter is clearly a prophet. The two symbolic dreams that Joseph himself dreamed (Gn 37:5-11) had sufficiently self-evident meaning so that his brothers and father were able to interpret them immediately. More complex were the dreams of the butler and baker (40:1-19) and of Pharaoh (41:1-36), which Joseph was able to interpret with the help of God. Similarly, Daniel was enabled to interpret the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (Dn 2:25-45; 4:4-27). The skill in interpreting such dreams was attributed by both Joseph and Daniel to God (Gn 40:8; 41:16, 25; Dn 2:27-30; cf. 4:9). While dreams are used almost interchangeably with visions in referring to modes of prophetic inspiration (Jl 2:28), dreams do not occupy a significant part in the prophetic revelations of any of the OT prophets, with the exception of Daniel.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most characteristic modes of prophetic inspiration was the vision (Nm 12:6; 24:4, 16; Hos 12:10). The revelatory visions experienced by the prophets were not limited to visual phenomena alone but also included the auditory dimension as well. In Isaiah 1:1, the author describes his entire prophetic book as a “vision”: “These visions concerning Judah and Jerusalem came to Isaiah son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah—all kings of Judah” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Yet in the very next verse, Isaiah says, “Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth! This is what the <span>Lord<\/span> says.” Again, in Amos 1:1, “The <em>words<\/em> of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he <em>saw<\/em> concerning Israel” (<span>rsv<\/span>, emphasis added).<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of Prophetic Inspiration<\/h5>\n<p>All prophecy, whether biblical or not, presupposes that the prophet either possessed or was possessed by a personal supernatural power. The external behavioral manifestations of this possession can exhibit great variety.<\/p>\n<p>The prophetic phenomenon generally designated “ecstatic” prophecy appears to have existed in Canaan prior to the arrival of the Hebrew tribes in the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. The first reference to ecstatic prophecy in Israel occurs in 1 Samuel 10:5-13 (11th century <span>BC<\/span>), and it persisted at least till the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> (Jer 29:26).<\/p>\n<p>The ecstatic prophet achieves a trancelike state by self-induced means. The most common devices used to achieve a state of ecstasy were musical instruments, such as the harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre (1 Sm 10:5). Among the prophets of Baal, self-flagellation was another means of inducing ecstasy (1 Kgs 18:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>This kind of prophetic ecstasy was usually practiced by groups of prophets (1 Sm 10:5), and such ecstasy was contagious. When Saul met a band of such prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him and he, too, began to prophesy (vv 10-13), a phenomenon that occurred repeatedly to various messengers sent by Saul on a later occasion (19:20-22). At that time Saul again prophesied, and his ecstatic behavior is described in 1 Samuel 19:24. When Elisha was asked to prophesy for King Jehoram of Israel, he first requested a minstrel. When the minstrel played, the power of the Lord came upon him (2 Kgs 3:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TypesofOldTestamentProphets\">Types of Old Testament Prophets<\/p>\n<p>There are two basic types of prophetic commission in the OT. One type is that of a narrative call by God to a particular individual whose objections to the call are gradually overcome in a dialogue between himself and God. The classic example of this type of prophetic commission is found in Jeremiah 1:4-8:<\/p>\n<p>The <span>Lord<\/span> gave me a message. He said, “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my spokesman to the world.”<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>“O Sovereign <span>Lord<\/span>,” I said, “I can’t speak for you! I’m too young!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>“Don’t say that,” the <span>Lord<\/span> replied, “for you must go wherever I send you and say whatever I tell you. And don’t be afraid of the people, for I will be with you and take care of you. I, the <span>Lord<\/span>, have spoken!” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Similar prophetic commissions including such dialogues are associated with the calls of Moses (Ex 3:1–4:17) and Gideon (Jgs 6:11-17).<\/p>\n<p>The second major form of prophetic commission is the “throne vision.” An outstanding example is Isaiah 6:1-8:<\/p>\n<p>In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord. He was sitting on a lofty throne, and the train of his robe filled the Temple. . . .<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Then I said, “My destruction is sealed, for I am a sinful man and a member of a sinful race. Yet I have seen the King, the <span>Lord<\/span> Almighty!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then one of the seraphim flew over to the altar, and he picked up a burning coal with a pair of tongs. He touched my lips with it and said, “See, this coal has touched your lips. Now your guilt is removed, and your sins are forgiven.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>Then I heard the Lord asking, “Whom should I send as a messenger to my people? Who will go for us?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>And I said, “Lord, I’ll go! Send me.” (<span>nlt<\/span>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here we have an account of the visionary presence of a prophet in the heavenly council; in this case, however, the prophet participates in the deliberations and thereby receives a prophetic commission. Though few prophets have left accounts of their divine commissions, most of them appear to have been conscious of having been “sent” by God (Is 48:16; Hos 8:1; Am 7:14-15). According to Jeremiah, false prophets did not receive such divine commissions (Jer 23:21, 32; 28:15).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMessageoftheProphets\">The Message of the Prophets<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The most common introductory formula for prophetic oracles in the OT is the phrase “Thus says the Lord,” which occurs hundreds of times in prophetic contexts. This formula clearly implies that the pronouncement so introduced is not the word of the prophet who utters the oracle but of the God of Israel who delivered his word to his prophet. The use of this formula also reiterates the prophet’s sense of divine commission. In oracles introduced in this manner, God speaks in the first person. In fact, virtually all Israelite prophetic utterance is formulated as the direct speech of the God of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets used many literary forms in which to express their oracles. Two of the more widely used forms of prophetic speech are the judgment speech and the oracle of salvation. The judgment speech is composed of at least two central elements: the speech of rebuke or invective, and the pronouncement of judgment (see 2 Kgs 1:3-4). The second common prophetic speech form is the oracle of salvation (see Is 41:8-13). Other fixed forms of prophetic speech include the prophecy of salvation (43:14-21), the proclamation of salvation (41:17-20; 42:14-17; 43:16-21; 49:7-12), and the woe oracle (Is 5:8-10; 10:1-4; Am 5:18-24; 6:1-7; Mi 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of the Message<\/h5>\n<p>The common adage that OT prophets were not “foretellers” but “forthtellers” is not strictly correct. All of the prophets predict the future. Such prediction, however, is based not on human curiosity of what the future will hold but rather is rooted in the future consequences of past or present violations of the covenant, or on a future act of deliverance that will provide hope for a discouraged people. Most of the prophetic speeches that have been preserved in the OT were originally delivered as public proclamations or sermons. Most of these prophetic proclamations were evoked by the iniquity and apostasy of Israel. Hosea and Jeremiah condemned Israel because she had broken the covenant (Jer 11:2-3; Hos 8:1).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets are frequently associated with social justice and social reform, and these elements were unquestionably an important dimension of their message. Amos denounced the rich who afflicted the poor (Am 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4-6). He railed against sexual immorality (2:6-8) and against those who take bribes (5:12). Hosea provided a list of prevalent vices, including lying, killing, stealing, adultery, and idolatry (Hos 4:2). Idolatry was a particular target for his denunciations (8:5; 11:2). The background for such heated denunciations of Israel’s behavior is God’s unquenchable love for Israel (Is 43:4; Jer 31:3; Hos 3:1; 11:1-4; 14:4; Mal 1:2), which is inseparable from his election of Israel (Is 43:1; Jer 33:24; Ez 20:5; Hos 3).<\/p>\n<p>The prophets were concerned not only with the transgressions of Israel and the historical judgment that would inevitably follow but also with the achievement of a final future time of bliss. The message of many of the prophets is thoroughly eschatological (i.e., pertaining to the end times). One such eschatological concept is that of the Day of the Lord. The concept of the Day of the Lord first appears in Amos, where the emphasis lies on the disaster that will befall Israel on that day. Amos’s emphasis on disaster notwithstanding, the Day of the Lord is a conception that had both salvific as well as judgmental overtones for Israel. While the disaster that will occur in the Day of the Lord can be viewed in terms of a literal historical fulfillment in the tragic events of 722 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Samaria) and 586 <span>BC<\/span> (the fall of Judah), there are nevertheless features of these predictions that transcend historical fulfillment and reach toward eschatological fulfillment.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Israelite conception of “salvation” was largely temporal in its dimensions, it included such blessings as length of life, fruitfulness of the womb and field, peace and victory over one’s enemies, the abundance of water, and so on. In harmony with this conception of salvation, the future age is conceived in precisely those terms, as in Amos 9:13-15.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets pictured a time when David himself, or someone very much like him, would return and inaugurate a golden era reminiscent of the great Davidic and Solomonic period. The covenant of God with David was not a conditional covenant but rather one that was absolutely inviolable (2 Sm 7:4-17; Ps 89; Jer 33:19-22), and it was with this knowledge that the prophets could look forward confidently to a restoration of David’s throne (Jer 17:24-26; 23:5-6; 33:14-15).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProphecyintheNewTestament\">Prophecy in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In contrast to the few self-proclaimed prophets of the intertestamental period, early Christianity began with a flurry of prophetic activity that lasted well into the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Jesus, his disciples and followers, and the early Christians were convinced that the times in which they lived were times in which OT prophecy was being fulfilled (Mk 1:14-15; Acts 2:16-21; Rom 16:25-27; 1 Cor 10:11). Yet this era was not only one of fulfillment but also one of the renewal of the prophetic gift.<\/p>\n<h5>John the Baptist<\/h5>\n<p>John the Baptist is remembered in the NT primarily as the forerunner of Jesus whose coming was predicted by Malachi (Mal 4:5-6). Yet, in his own right, John proclaimed the imminent judgment of God with a flair of denunciation and rebuke reminiscent of the OT prophets. John’s costume, consisting of a hairy cloak and a leather girdle (Mk 1:6), was reminiscent of the typical garb of OT prophets (1 Kgs 19:19; 2 Kgs 1:8; 2:13-14; Zec 13:4). John was regarded as a prophet by people everywhere (Mt 14:5; 17:10-13; Mk 9:11-13; 11:32; Lk 1:76; 7:26). Luke reports, in a style similar to the OT prophetic narratives, that “the word of God came to John” (Lk 3:2). Two short prophetic speeches have been preserved in Matthew 3:7-10 (cf. Lk 3:7-9) and Mark 1:7-8 (cf. Mt 3:11-12; Lk 3:15-18). In the first speech, John denounced those of his generation who had transgressed the covenant law and exhorted them to change their manner of life. In the second speech, John predicted the coming of the Mighty One, Jesus (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:15, 27, 30; Acts 13:25). John’s style, however, was not precisely that of the OT prophets. His pronouncements were made on his own authority; never did he use formulas such as “thus says the Lord,” or present his prophetic utterances as if they were speeches made by God. Yet, in spite of these differences, John is appropriately regarded as the last representative of the OT prophetic tradition (Mt 11:13; Lk 16:16).<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus of Nazareth<\/h5>\n<p>Jesus was popularly regarded as a prophet (Mt 16:14; 21:10-11; Mk 6:14-15; 8:28; Lk 7:16, 39; 9:8, 19; Jn 6:14; 7:40, 52). This assessment was based as much on the mighty deeds Jesus performed as on his prophetic speeches and predictions. Though Jesus nowhere claimed prophetic status directly, that claim is implicit in Mark 6:4: “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown” (cf. Mt 13:57; Lk 4:24). It is implicit as well in Luke 13:33: “Yes, today, tomorrow, and the next day I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be killed except in Jerusalem!” (<span>nlt<\/span>). In Acts, Jesus is regarded as “the prophet like Moses” predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Matthew presents Jesus as the New Moses, but he does not particularly emphasize his prophetic role. John, however, like Luke, emphasizes Jesus’ role as the prophet (Jn 4:19; 6:14-15; 7:40).<\/p>\n<p>While the Gospels and Acts reflect the notion that Jesus was a prophet, they also emphasize the fact that he was much more than a prophet. Nevertheless, the notion of prophetism was sufficiently important in early Judaism that Jesus’ recognition as a prophet is very significant. There are 12 solid reasons for regarding Jesus as a prophet in the OT tradition: (1) The sovereign authority of Jesus’ teaching (Mk 1:27), a feature underlined by his use of the introductory formula “(Amen) I say to you,” which is reminiscent of the formula “thus says the Lord” used by the OT prophets. (2) The poetic character of many of Jesus’ sayings is unlike contemporary rabbinic teaching but is similar to the poetic rhetoric of the OT prophets. (3) Jesus experienced visions (Lk 10:18) like the ancient prophets. (4) Jesus, like the prophets, made many predictions (Mt 23:38; Mk 13:2; 14:58; Lk 13:35; etc.). (5) Like the OT prophets, Jesus performed symbolic acts (such as the cleansing of the temple, the entry into Jerusalem, and the Last Supper). (6) Jesus, like the prophets, when necessary, rejected the formal observance of religious ritual and emphasized the moral and spiritual dimensions of obedience to God. (7) Jesus announced the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God—an eschatological proclamation similar to those made by the prophets. (8) Like the OT prophets, Jesus functioned as a preacher of repentance. (9) Jesus, like many of the prophets, was conscious of a special calling of God (Mt 15:24; Mk 8:31; 9:37; 14:36; Lk 4:18-26). (10) Jesus, like the prophets, received divine revelation through intimate communion with God (Mt 11:27; Lk 10:22). (11) Like the prophets, Jesus represented God; to obey him was to obey God, to reject him was to reject God (Mk 9:37; cf. Ez 33:30-33). (12) Like the prophets, Jesus was conscious of a mission to all Israel (Mt 15:24; 19:28; Lk 22:30).<\/p>\n<p>Among the many prophetic predictions of Jesus are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Predictions of the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God (Mt 10:7-8, 23; 23:39; Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:28-29)<\/p>\n<li>2. Predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Mt 23:37-39; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40; Mk 13:2; 14:58; 15:29; Lk 13:34-35; 21:6; Jn 2:19-21)<\/li>\n<li>3. Predictions of the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 10:23, 32-33; 12:40; 13:40-41; 16:27; 24:27, 37-39; Mk 8:38; 13:26-27; 14:62; Lk 9:26; 11:30; 12:8-9; 17:24, 26)<\/li>\n<li>4. Predictions of the end of the age. The longest prophetic section in the Gospels is the eschatological discourse of Jesus in Mark 13:1-32 (cf. Mt 24:1-36; Lk 21:5-33), in which a number of predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age are woven into a lengthy discourse to the disciples.<\/li>\n<h5>Prophecy as a Gift for the Believers<\/h5>\n<p>The beginning of prophetic activity in early Christianity, according to Acts, coincided with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the earliest Christians on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-21). Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost indicates that the outpouring of the Spirit fulfilled Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:4, 17-21; cf. Jl 2:28-32). Further, since the Spirit had been poured out upon all early Christians (that Spirit being a Spirit of prophecy), all are actual or potential prophets.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Corinthians 12:28 (see also Rom 12:6; Eph 4:11), God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, and third teachers. The names of several early Christian prophets have been preserved. These include Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11); Judas and Silas (15:32); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Paul (13:1); and the four virgin daughters of Philip the evangelist (21:8-9). John, the author of Revelation, was certainly a prophet (Rv 1:3; 22:9, 18), though he never directly assumed that title.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRoleoftheChristianProphet\">The Role of the Christian Prophet<\/p>\n<p>Christian prophets were leaders in early Christian communities (1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11), who exercised their gift in church gatherings (Acts 13:1-3; 11:27-28; 1 Cor 12–14; Rv 1:10). Since the Spirit of God was particularly active in Christian worship, prophecy was a major means whereby God communicated with his people. Prophets, like apostles and teachers, did not hold offices in local communities like bishops, elders, and deacons. Rather, they were chosen, not by individual congregations, but by divine commission and so were honored and accepted in all local communities.<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian prophets were both itinerant and settled, though itinerant prophets seem to have been more prevalent in Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor than in the European churches.<\/p>\n<h5>The Function of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>According to Paul, the central purpose of prophecy (as of all other spiritual gifts) is that of building up or edifying the church. According to 1 Corinthians 14:3, “one who prophesies is helping others grow in the Lord, encouraging and comforting them” (<span>nlt<\/span>). Again, in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul states that the “one who speaks a word of prophecy strengthens the entire church.” Paul discussed the subject of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues speaking and prophecy, because the Corinthians had placed an excessive emphasis on speaking in tongues. Paul did not object to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:18, 39), but he did point out that, since it was generally incomprehensible, the church could not be edified by it. Prophecy, which consisted of comprehensible speech inspired by the Spirit, contributed to the mutual edification, encouragement, and consolation of all present (1 Cor 14:20-25, 39).<\/p>\n<h5>The Content of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>We know only a little about the content of prophecies uttered in the first-century church. Prophetic utterance occasionally provided divine guidance in making important decisions in early Christianity. Through a prophetic utterance, Paul and Barnabas were selected for a particular mission (Acts 13:1-3; cf. 1 Tm 1:18; 4:14). Probably through prophetic utterance, Paul and Timothy were forbidden to preach the gospel in Asia (Acts 16:6), and they were similarly forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus to go into Bithynia (v 7). Perhaps the most frequent use of prophecy is the prediction of the future. Agabus predicted a universal famine (11:28) and the imminent arrest of Paul (21:11). Other prophets had also predicted his impending imprisonment (20:23). The prophecies contained in the Revelation of John are all oriented toward the future events that will gradually unfold in the last days. Yet the purpose of John’s elaborate prophecy is not to satisfy the curiosity of his audience but rather to comfort and encourage them in the midst of persecution.<\/p>\n<h5>The Form of Christian Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>Unlike the prophets of the OT, Christian prophets did not always present their message in the form of a direct speech from God or Jesus. There are few, if any, formal indicators of the presence of prophetic speech in early Christian literature. The book of Revelation is one notable exception.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dreams; Oracle; Promise; Prophet, Prophetess; Prophets, False; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","summary_en":"PROPHECY Term, along with its English cognates (“prophet,” “to prophesy,” “prophetism,” and “prophetic”), derived from a group of Greek words that, in secular Greek, mean “speak forth,” “proclaim,” “announce.” In biblical Greek, however, these terms always carry the connotation of speaking, proclaiming, or announcing something under the influence of spiritual inspiration. Preview • Prophecy in the Old Testament • Types of Old Testament Prophets • The Message of the Prophets • Prophecy in the ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32250,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Qumran*","title_en":"Qumran*","content_ro":"<h3>QUMRAN*<\/h3>\n<p>Ancient Jewish religious community near the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947.<\/p>\n<p>On the north side of the Wadi Qumran, about one mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cave I, lie the ruins of a Jewish monastery known as Khirbet Qumran. The ruins had been noted by travelers for years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExcavationsatKhirbetQumran\">Excavations at Khirbet Qumran<\/p>\n<p>Preliminary investigations of Khirbet Qumran were made in 1949 by Harding and de Vaux. Systematic excavations were carried out, beginning in 1951, under the auspices of the Jordanian Archaeological Museum and the École Biblique. They uncovered the main building in the complex, concluding that it was the center of a well-organized community. An estimated 200 to 400 people lived at Qumran at one time, most of them in tents outside the buildings or in nearby caves. A large cemetery, with smaller secondary graveyards, was located to the east toward the Dead Sea. De Vaux concluded that Khirbet Qumran was the headquarters of a Jewish sect called the Essenes.<\/p>\n<p>Investigations at the site have shown that it was occupied at various times in antiquity. The earliest level of occupation dates back to the eighth and seventh centuries <span>BC<\/span>. Some have suggested that the buildings and cisterns may have been built during the reign of King Uzziah (cf. 2 Chr 26:10). Evidence of occupation of the site in the Greco-Roman period is abundant. A major settlement began shortly before 100 <span>BC<\/span>, probably in the time of Hyrcanus I (the first ruling priest of the Hasmonean dynasty, 134–104 <span>BC<\/span>), and ended with an earthquake in 31 <span>BC<\/span>. The site was probably reoccupied about the time of the death of Herod the Great (4 <span>BC<\/span>). That occupation ended when the area was captured by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 68. A Roman garrison remained there until about <span>AD<\/span> 90. Finally, Jewish rebels used the site in the second revolt against the Romans under Bar-Kochba in <span>AD<\/span> 132–135.<\/p>\n<p>The largest building was the main assembly hall, with adjoining rooms. Pottery was found in abundance, not only for kitchen use but also (probably) for housing the scrolls, which were copied in the writing room, or scriptorium. Although no manuscripts were found in the ruins of Khirbet Qumran, the pottery was similar to that in which the scrolls were found in Cave I, thus establishing a link between the ruins and the manuscripts. Low plaster tables or benches, together with inkwells dating from Roman times, were found in the scriptorium.<\/p>\n<p>An interesting feature of the area was an elaborate water system, with many round and rectangular cisterns that collected water from the mountains to the west. The cisterns were probably used for ritual purifications and baptismal ceremonies of the Qumran sect. Hundreds of coins from the Greco-Roman period have also helped in dating the various layers of occupation. An oasis and spring known as ‘Ain Feshka, about two miles (3.2 kilometers) to the south, appears to have been an agricultural outpost of Khirbet Qumran.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IdentityoftheQumranSect\">Identity of the Qumran Sect<\/p>\n<p>The Qumran community was a sectarian group of Judaism. It originated in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, probably as a result of the imposition of Greek culture on the Jews by rulers of the Seleucid dynasty. The community repudiated the temple at Jerusalem and withdrew into the desert. “Damascus” was probably the designation of their community at Qumran. As the “community of God,” the members believed they were obedient to God’s will and were keeping his covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The sect has been identified with various groups, including the Hasidim, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Ebionites, and others. The best identification seems to be with the Essenes, a sect mentioned by such first-century <span>AD<\/span> writers as Josephus, Philo, and Pliny the Elder. They described the Essenes as an ascetic group who lived along the western shores of the Dead Sea. In addition to the geographical and chronological arguments in favor of that identification, a more important argument is based on similarities in beliefs and practices between the Qumran community and the Essenes. Both had a probationary period of about two years for entrance into the group, ranked the members in their community, held their property and wealth in common, ate communal meals, practiced immersion and ritual cleansings, and were subject to the discipline and examination of overseers.<\/p>\n<p>The Qumran sect was composed of priests and laity. The council of the community consisted of 15 men: 3 priests and 12 laymen. A superintendent or examiner was over the whole group. There are some discrepancies and alleged differences between the Qumran sect and the Essenes. Unlike the Essenes, the Qumran members were allowed to marry, and women were permitted entrance into the sect. Although the Essenes were pacifists, the people of Qumran were not.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeliefsoftheQumranSect\">Beliefs of the Qumran Sect<\/p>\n<p>Like both orthodox Jews and Christians, the Qumran sect held the Scriptures in high esteem. Considering themselves God’s covenant people, they separated themselves from the mainstream of Jewish life to study the law of God and prepare the way of the Lord. As Jews, they believed in the God of the OT: the Lord of creation, sovereign over all things, predestining human beings to either salvation or condemnation. Angels played an important role in their theology as spirit creatures who would fight beside the “elect” in a final war against evil and darkness. The sect strongly emphasized knowledge and, within their basic framework of monotheism, viewed the world as evil and good—with God as the author of both.<\/p>\n<p>Qumran teachings pictured humans as frail creatures of dust who were utterly sinful and who could be saved only by God’s grace. Cleansing came only as one obeyed God’s ordinances and the community’s teachings as given by the Teacher of Righteousness. The anonymous Teacher of Righteousness described in the “Habakkuk Commentary” and other scrolls was not the founder of the sect but had been raised up by God to teach the community the way of life. He had been given special insight into God’s purposes, which would be accomplished in the end times. He was a priest who had received understanding from God to interpret the words of the prophets, but he was not the Messiah. The Teacher was opposed and persecuted by a “Wicked Priest.” Attempts to identify the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest with specific historical figures, as some scholars have tried to do, are purely conjectural.<\/p>\n<p>The Qumran sect had a strong messianic hope. They believed that they were living in the last days before the coming of the Messiah (or Messiahs) and the final battle with wickedness. The “Damascus Document” used the expression “the anointed ones [messiahs] of Aaron and Israel.” Many scholars see in the expression a reference to two messiahs: a superior priestly messiah (descended from Aaron) and a lesser kingly messiah (descended from Israel). Some scholars even see three messianic figures: one descended from David, a messianic king; one from Aaron, a messianic priest; and one from Moses, a messianic prophet (cf. Dt 18:18). The Teacher of Righteousness may even have had the role of the anticipated prophet. Members of the community believed in the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the righteous. The wicked, they taught, would be punished and annihilated by fire.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>QUMRAN*<\/h3>\n<p>Ancient Jewish religious community near the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947.<\/p>\n<p>On the north side of the Wadi Qumran, about one mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cave I, lie the ruins of a Jewish monastery known as Khirbet Qumran. The ruins had been noted by travelers for years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ExcavationsatKhirbetQumran\">Excavations at Khirbet Qumran<\/p>\n<p>Preliminary investigations of Khirbet Qumran were made in 1949 by Harding and de Vaux. Systematic excavations were carried out, beginning in 1951, under the auspices of the Jordanian Archaeological Museum and the École Biblique. They uncovered the main building in the complex, concluding that it was the center of a well-organized community. An estimated 200 to 400 people lived at Qumran at one time, most of them in tents outside the buildings or in nearby caves. A large cemetery, with smaller secondary graveyards, was located to the east toward the Dead Sea. De Vaux concluded that Khirbet Qumran was the headquarters of a Jewish sect called the Essenes.<\/p>\n<p>Investigations at the site have shown that it was occupied at various times in antiquity. The earliest level of occupation dates back to the eighth and seventh centuries <span>BC<\/span>. Some have suggested that the buildings and cisterns may have been built during the reign of King Uzziah (cf. 2 Chr 26:10). Evidence of occupation of the site in the Greco-Roman period is abundant. A major settlement began shortly before 100 <span>BC<\/span>, probably in the time of Hyrcanus I (the first ruling priest of the Hasmonean dynasty, 134–104 <span>BC<\/span>), and ended with an earthquake in 31 <span>BC<\/span>. The site was probably reoccupied about the time of the death of Herod the Great (4 <span>BC<\/span>). That occupation ended when the area was captured by the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 68. A Roman garrison remained there until about <span>AD<\/span> 90. Finally, Jewish rebels used the site in the second revolt against the Romans under Bar-Kochba in <span>AD<\/span> 132–135.<\/p>\n<p>The largest building was the main assembly hall, with adjoining rooms. Pottery was found in abundance, not only for kitchen use but also (probably) for housing the scrolls, which were copied in the writing room, or scriptorium. Although no manuscripts were found in the ruins of Khirbet Qumran, the pottery was similar to that in which the scrolls were found in Cave I, thus establishing a link between the ruins and the manuscripts. Low plaster tables or benches, together with inkwells dating from Roman times, were found in the scriptorium.<\/p>\n<p>An interesting feature of the area was an elaborate water system, with many round and rectangular cisterns that collected water from the mountains to the west. The cisterns were probably used for ritual purifications and baptismal ceremonies of the Qumran sect. Hundreds of coins from the Greco-Roman period have also helped in dating the various layers of occupation. An oasis and spring known as ‘Ain Feshka, about two miles (3.2 kilometers) to the south, appears to have been an agricultural outpost of Khirbet Qumran.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IdentityoftheQumranSect\">Identity of the Qumran Sect<\/p>\n<p>The Qumran community was a sectarian group of Judaism. It originated in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, probably as a result of the imposition of Greek culture on the Jews by rulers of the Seleucid dynasty. The community repudiated the temple at Jerusalem and withdrew into the desert. “Damascus” was probably the designation of their community at Qumran. As the “community of God,” the members believed they were obedient to God’s will and were keeping his covenant.<\/p>\n<p>The sect has been identified with various groups, including the Hasidim, Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Ebionites, and others. The best identification seems to be with the Essenes, a sect mentioned by such first-century <span>AD<\/span> writers as Josephus, Philo, and Pliny the Elder. They described the Essenes as an ascetic group who lived along the western shores of the Dead Sea. In addition to the geographical and chronological arguments in favor of that identification, a more important argument is based on similarities in beliefs and practices between the Qumran community and the Essenes. Both had a probationary period of about two years for entrance into the group, ranked the members in their community, held their property and wealth in common, ate communal meals, practiced immersion and ritual cleansings, and were subject to the discipline and examination of overseers.<\/p>\n<p>The Qumran sect was composed of priests and laity. The council of the community consisted of 15 men: 3 priests and 12 laymen. A superintendent or examiner was over the whole group. There are some discrepancies and alleged differences between the Qumran sect and the Essenes. Unlike the Essenes, the Qumran members were allowed to marry, and women were permitted entrance into the sect. Although the Essenes were pacifists, the people of Qumran were not.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BeliefsoftheQumranSect\">Beliefs of the Qumran Sect<\/p>\n<p>Like both orthodox Jews and Christians, the Qumran sect held the Scriptures in high esteem. Considering themselves God’s covenant people, they separated themselves from the mainstream of Jewish life to study the law of God and prepare the way of the Lord. As Jews, they believed in the God of the OT: the Lord of creation, sovereign over all things, predestining human beings to either salvation or condemnation. Angels played an important role in their theology as spirit creatures who would fight beside the “elect” in a final war against evil and darkness. The sect strongly emphasized knowledge and, within their basic framework of monotheism, viewed the world as evil and good—with God as the author of both.<\/p>\n<p>Qumran teachings pictured humans as frail creatures of dust who were utterly sinful and who could be saved only by God’s grace. Cleansing came only as one obeyed God’s ordinances and the community’s teachings as given by the Teacher of Righteousness. The anonymous Teacher of Righteousness described in the “Habakkuk Commentary” and other scrolls was not the founder of the sect but had been raised up by God to teach the community the way of life. He had been given special insight into God’s purposes, which would be accomplished in the end times. He was a priest who had received understanding from God to interpret the words of the prophets, but he was not the Messiah. The Teacher was opposed and persecuted by a “Wicked Priest.” Attempts to identify the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest with specific historical figures, as some scholars have tried to do, are purely conjectural.<\/p>\n<p>The Qumran sect had a strong messianic hope. They believed that they were living in the last days before the coming of the Messiah (or Messiahs) and the final battle with wickedness. The “Damascus Document” used the expression “the anointed ones [messiahs] of Aaron and Israel.” Many scholars see in the expression a reference to two messiahs: a superior priestly messiah (descended from Aaron) and a lesser kingly messiah (descended from Israel). Some scholars even see three messianic figures: one descended from David, a messianic king; one from Aaron, a messianic priest; and one from Moses, a messianic prophet (cf. Dt 18:18). The Teacher of Righteousness may even have had the role of the anticipated prophet. Members of the community believed in the resurrection of the dead and the immortality of the righteous. The wicked, they taught, would be punished and annihilated by fire.<\/p>","summary_ro":"QUMRAN* Ancient Jewish religious community near the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. On the north side of the Wadi Qumran, about one mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cave I, lie the ruins of a Jewish monastery known as Khirbet Qumran. The ruins had been noted by travelers for years. Excavations at Khirbet Qumran Preliminary investigations of Khirbet Qumran were made in 1949 by Harding and de Vaux. Systematic excavations were carried out, beginning in 1951, under the auspices ...","summary_en":"QUMRAN* Ancient Jewish religious community near the site where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947. On the north side of the Wadi Qumran, about one mile (1.6 kilometers) south of Cave I, lie the ruins of a Jewish monastery known as Khirbet Qumran. The ruins had been noted by travelers for years. Excavations at Khirbet Qumran Preliminary investigations of Khirbet Qumran were made in 1949 by Harding and de Vaux. Systematic excavations were carried out, beginning in 1951, under the auspices ...","source":"Articles\/Q.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":40362,"type":"textbox","type_label":"Notă explicativă","type_icon":"💡","type_color":"#8b5cf6","title_ro":"Three Anointed Ones Foreshadow the Messiah","title_en":"Three Anointed Ones Foreshadow the Messiah","content_ro":"<h3>Three Anointed Ones Foreshadow the Messiah<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Jesus’ office and function were foreshadowed by the three groups of OT anointed officials: prophets, priests, and kings. Elisha’s anointing by Elijah (1 Kgs 19:16) shows anointing of prophets was practiced, although not required by OT law. Moses was the first OT prophet (Dt 18:18) whose ministry prompted the messianic hope for the coming of the Prophet (Jn 6:14; Heb 1:1). All priests, from Aaron on, were ordained by anointing with oil in required consecration rites (Ex 28:41; 29:7-9; 30:30). The kings of Israel, beginning with Saul and David, were anointed as a sign of divine choice and approval (1 Sm 9:15-17; 10:1; 16:13). Essential to the external ceremony was the pouring of perfumed olive oil upon the person’s head (Ex 30:22-33). The internal reality was the gift of the Spirit to the recipient: “from that day on the Spirit of the <span>Lord<\/span> came upon David in power” (1 Sm 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>). The anointed person was not a free agent. As prophet, priest, or king, he spoke, served, or ruled in the name of the Lord and as his representative to the people of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>","content_en":"<h3>Three Anointed Ones Foreshadow the Messiah<\/h3>\n<blockquote><p>Jesus’ office and function were foreshadowed by the three groups of OT anointed officials: prophets, priests, and kings. Elisha’s anointing by Elijah (1 Kgs 19:16) shows anointing of prophets was practiced, although not required by OT law. Moses was the first OT prophet (Dt 18:18) whose ministry prompted the messianic hope for the coming of the Prophet (Jn 6:14; Heb 1:1). All priests, from Aaron on, were ordained by anointing with oil in required consecration rites (Ex 28:41; 29:7-9; 30:30). The kings of Israel, beginning with Saul and David, were anointed as a sign of divine choice and approval (1 Sm 9:15-17; 10:1; 16:13). Essential to the external ceremony was the pouring of perfumed olive oil upon the person’s head (Ex 30:22-33). The internal reality was the gift of the Spirit to the recipient: “from that day on the Spirit of the <span>Lord<\/span> came upon David in power” (1 Sm 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>). The anointed person was not a free agent. As prophet, priest, or king, he spoke, served, or ruled in the name of the Lord and as his representative to the people of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>","summary_ro":"Three Anointed Ones Foreshadow the Messiah Jesus’ office and function were foreshadowed by the three groups of OT anointed officials: prophets, priests, and kings. Elisha’s anointing by Elijah (1 Kgs 19:16) shows anointing of prophets was practiced, although not required by OT law. Moses was the first OT prophet (Dt 18:18) whose ministry prompted the messianic hope for the coming of the Prophet (Jn 6:14; Heb 1:1). All priests, from Aaron on, were ordained by anointing with oil in required con...","summary_en":"Three Anointed Ones Foreshadow the Messiah Jesus’ office and function were foreshadowed by the three groups of OT anointed officials: prophets, priests, and kings. Elisha’s anointing by Elijah (1 Kgs 19:16) shows anointing of prophets was practiced, although not required by OT law. Moses was the first OT prophet (Dt 18:18) whose ministry prompted the messianic hope for the coming of the Prophet (Jn 6:14; Heb 1:1). All priests, from Aaron on, were ordained by anointing with oil in required con...","source":"Textboxes\/Textboxes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45081,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:18","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","summary_en":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72707,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:18","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","summary_en":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100333,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:18","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","summary_en":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127959,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:18","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:18","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:18<\/strong> The <em>prophet<\/em> (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","summary_en":"18:18 The prophet (18:15) would be the Lord’s spokesman, as Moses was (see 4:10-17; Exod 7:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":45082,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","summary_en":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72708,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","summary_en":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100334,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","summary_en":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127960,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:19<\/strong> Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","summary_en":"18:19 Not to listen to the Lord’s spokesman is not to listen to the Lord.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":31702,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Prophetess Prophet","title_en":"Prophetess Prophet","content_ro":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PROPHET, PROPHETESS<\/h3>\n<p>A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>• True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>• The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>• Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative religious happenings found their focus in the call and ministry of a prophet, through whom God communicated his word to his people. In their appraisal of Jesus, the people were in fact more correct than they knew, for in him God had in reality visited them and he, though so much more than a prophet, was in fact the crown and climax of the prophetic order predicted by Moses (Dt 18:15-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheTitlesandHistoryoftheProphets\">The Titles and History of the Prophets<\/p>\n<p>The main words used to describe such individuals in the OT are “prophet” (see Jgs 6:8), “man of God” (see 2 Kgs 4:9) and “seer” (see 1 Sm 9:9; 2 Sm 24:11).<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “prophet” seems to have the idea “called” as its first emphasis: God takes the initiative, selects, summons, and sends the prophet (e.g., Jer 1:4-5; 7:25; Am 7:14). “Man of God” speaks of the relationship into which the prophet is brought by his call: he is now “God’s man” and is recognized as belonging to him (2 Kgs 4:9). “Seer” indicates the new and remarkable powers of perception granted to the prophet. In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb “to see” is used also of understanding (“I see what you mean”) and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things (“He sees things very clearly”). In the case of the prophets, their powers of “perception” were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.<\/p>\n<p>The line of great prophets upon whose shoulders the story of the OT moves forward began with Moses, who is recognized as the prophet par excellence (Dt 34:10). This was a correct perception, for all the distinctive marks of a prophet belonged to Moses: the call (Ex 3:1–4:17; cf. Is 6; Jer 1:4-19; Ez 1–3; Hos 1:2; Am 7:14-15), the awareness of the importance of historical events as the acts of God in which he confirmed his word (Ex 3:12; 4:21-23), ethical and social concern (2:11-13), and championship of the helpless (v 17).<\/p>\n<p>But the comment in Deuteronomy 34:10 not only looks back to the greatness of Moses but also looks forward to the coming of a prophet like Moses. This accords with his own prediction (Dt 18:15-19), which undoubtedly anticipates a single, great individual prophet. Moses makes a striking comparison with himself—the coming prophet will fill just such a role as Moses filled at Mt Sinai (Dt 18:16). On that occasion, Moses acted as the prophetic mediator of the voice of God in a unique sense, for at Sinai God fashioned the old covenant into its completed form. In expecting a prophet cast in this mold, Moses was therefore looking forward to another covenant-mediator, Jesus Christ himself.<\/p>\n<p>The expectation for this great prophet was kept alive as God kept sending prophets to his people. In each case, such a prophet was known to be true by his likeness to Moses; in each case he would be viewed with excitement by genuine believers to see whether he was the great one come at last. In this light we can understand the excitement of the people who saw Jesus raise the dead (Lk 7:16).<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions the existence of prophetic groups, sometimes called “schools.” Elisha clearly had such a group under his instruction (2 Kgs 6:1), and “sons of the prophets” (e.g., 2 Kgs 2:3, 5; Am 7:14) probably refers to “prophet in training” under the care of a master prophet. “Guilds” would be a better description of the groups in 1 Samuel 10:5-11. Such groups enjoyed an enthusiastic, ecstatic worship of the Lord, touched with a marked activity of the Spirit of God. But at the heart of their devotion was “prophecy”—that is, a declaration of the truth about God himself. After this early period, the prophetic groups seem to have diminished in significance (judging by the disappearance of plain references similar to those in 1 Samuel), and the gradual change of things from ecstasy to a more direct ministry of the word could well lie behind the comment in 1 Samuel 9:9.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Inspiration\">Inspiration<\/p>\n<p>The Spirit of the Lord whose inspiration lay behind the activities of the ecstatic groups (1 Sm 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23) was active in all the prophets, and the claim to divine inspiration is plainly registered from time to time (e.g., 1 Kgs 22:24; Neh 9:30; Hos 9:7; Jl 2:28-29; Mi 3:8; cf. 1 Chr 12:18; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20). The Spirit inspired men and women to speak the very words of God (cf. 2 Pt 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>Jeremiah claims that the hand of God was laid on his mouth, putting the words of God into his lips (Jer 1:9); Ezekiel records how he was made to eat a scroll, by which means he received the words the Lord had written and was thus enabled to speak what the Lord called “my words” (Ez 2:7–4:4). The miracle is stated in a nutshell at the beginning of Amos (1:1, 3): “The words of Amos . . . Thus saith the <span>Lord<\/span>.” Though the words were truly Amos’s words, the words were also the Lord’s.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TrueandFalseProphets\">True and False Prophets<\/p>\n<p>False prophets were to be separated from true prophets by means of three tests. The first test was doctrinal. In Deuteronomy 13 the motive of the false prophet was to draw the people away from the God who had revealed himself in the exodus (Dt 13:2, 5-7, 10). Notwithstanding that the word of the false prophet might be supported by apparent signs and wonders (vv 1-2), it was to be refused—not simply because it introduced novelty (vv 2, 6) but because that novelty contradicted the revelation of the Lord at the exodus (vv 5, 10). The first test was thus doctrinal and required that the people of God have knowledge of the truth whereby they could, by comparison, recognize error.<\/p>\n<p>The second test was practical and required patience. It is stated in Deuteronomy 18:21-22: the word of the Lord always comes to pass. This requires patience because, as Deuteronomy 13:1-2 indicates, a false word may be supported by an apparent spiritual proof. The call of Deuteronomy 18:21-22 is a call for patience. Should there be any real doubt about whether a prophetic word is true or false, wait for the confirmatory turn of events.<\/p>\n<p>The third test is moral and calls for watchful discernment. Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was most afflicted in his spirit by the presence of false prophets and gave the longest and most sustained consideration to the problem (Jer 23:9-40). His answer is striking and challenging: the false prophet will be found out as a man of unholy life (vv 11-14) whose message has no note of moral rebuke but rather encourages men in their sin (vv 16-22).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFunctionoftheProphet\">The Function of the Prophet<\/p>\n<p>It is sometimes said that prophets are not “foretellers” but “forthtellers.” As far as the OT is concerned, however, the prophets are forthtellers (declaring the truth about God) by being foretellers (predicting what God will do). Prediction is neither an occasional nor a marginal activity in the OT; it is the way the prophet went about his work. Deuteronomy 18:9-15 explains the function of the prophet in Israel: the surrounding nations are revealed as probing into the future by means of a variety of fortune-telling techniques (vv 10-11); these things are forbidden to Israel on the ground of being abominable to the Lord (v 12). Israel’s distinctiveness is maintained in that the nations probe the future by diviners, whereas the Lord gives Israel a prophet (vv 13-15). Elisha (2 Kgs 4:27) is surprised when foreknowledge is denied him; Amos teaches that foreknowledge is the privilege of the prophets in their fellowship with God (Am 3:7). But prediction in Israel was totally unlike prognostication among the nations, for in no way was it motivated by a mere curiosity about the future.<\/p>\n<p>First, biblical prediction arose out of the needs of the present. In Isaiah 39 it is the faithless commitment of Hezekiah to rely for security on a military understanding with Babylon that prompts Isaiah to announce the future Babylonian captivity. Isaiah does not snatch the name Babylon out of thin air; it is given to him within the situation in which he was called to minister.<\/p>\n<p>Second, prediction aimed at giving knowledge of the future was to result in moral reformation in the present. The moral exhortations of the prophets find their explanation in what the Lord is about to do (e.g., Is 31:6-7; Am 5:6).<\/p>\n<p>Third, the predicted course of events was aimed at stabilizing the faith of the true believer in dark times. For example, various passages in Isaiah (Is 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 40:1-3) have the effect of lifting the eyes out of the immediately preceding grim tragedy to the coming glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofCommunication\">Methods of Communication<\/p>\n<p>In foretelling, the prophets were forthtelling—they were proclaiming the wonderful works of God (cf. the definition of prophecy in Acts 2:11, 17). For the most part, this proclamation was by direct word of mouth. The prophets were men of the word. Their words were like messengers sent by God (Is 55:11), endowed with all the divine efficacy of the creative word of Genesis 1:3 (cf. Ps 33:6). Sometimes the efficacy of the word was enhanced by being accompanied by a sign or symbolic action (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19; Ez 4:1-17; 24:15-24), or identified intimately with a person (Is 7:3; cf. 8:1-4). Such things were like visual aids, whereby the word would be made clearer to those present. But it would seem that the intention of the symbolic action (sometimes called an “acted oracle”) was not so much to make understanding easier but to give more power and effect to the word as it was sent like a messenger into that situation. This is the conclusion to be drawn from 2 Kings 13:14-19, where the extent to which the king “embodied” the word in action determined the extent to which the word would prove effective in bringing events to pass.<\/p>\n<p>The final embodiment of the words of the prophets is in the books that have been preserved. Jeremiah 36 may be taken as an object lesson in the fact that the prophets took the time and trouble to record their spoken messages in writing: there was stress on careful word-by-word dictation (Jer 36:6, 17-18). But the actual literary form of the messages themselves tells the same tale. What we find in the books of the prophets cannot be the preached form of their words but rather the studied wording in which they preserved (and filed away) their sermons. It stands to reason that men who were conscious of communicating the very words of God would see to it that those words were not lost. We may take it for granted that every prophet preserved a written record of his ministry. Whether each of the named prophets was himself directly responsible for the final form of his book, we are not told and have no way of knowing. The careful way in which the books of Isaiah or Amos, for example, are arranged is best suited by assuming that the author was also his own editor.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Prophets, False.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","summary_en":"PROPHET, PROPHETESS A man or woman chosen by God to speak for him and to foretell events in the divine plan. Preview • Introduction • The Titles and History of the Prophets • Inspiration • True and False Prophets • The Function of the Prophet • Methods of Communication Introduction When Jesus raised the widow’s son from the dead, the onlookers responded by saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” (Lk 7:16; cf. Mk 6:15; 8:28). In Jewish religious thought, the most vivid and formative rel...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":9869,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Dreams","title_en":"Dreams","content_ro":"<h3>DREAMS<\/h3>\n<p>Thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep. Dreams have always fascinated people; the events experienced in dreams are too vivid and real to be ignored.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AncientUnderstanding\">Ancient Understanding<\/p>\n<p>From the earliest times people viewed dreams as a mystery, provoking speculation about another actual sphere of existence in which the person lived and acted while the body slept. Dreams, especially those of emperors and kings, were held to be messages from the gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ancient recorded dreams focused on three main areas: religion, politics, and personal destiny. Religious dreams called for piety and devotion to the gods. Political dreams supposedly forecast the outcome of battles and the future destiny of nations. Personal dreams guided family decisions and presaged serious crises.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes the god took the initiative and forewarned the person about something unexpected. Sometimes the ruler or general would go to a pagan temple or holy place and sleep there, hoping to bring on a dream that would help him cope with some serious problem. In some dreams the message was clear; more often it had to be discovered by individuals who specialized in dream interpretation. Records were kept concerning specific dreams and the subsequent events.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentUse\">Old Testament Use<\/p>\n<p>Dreams played an important part in the lives of God’s people. Of the nearly 120 references to dreams in the OT, 52 come in Genesis during the early patriarchal period and 29 in the book of Daniel. In reality, however, only 14 specific dreams are recorded in the OT. Most of them are in Genesis and reflect God’s direct revelation to the patriarchs. Even Daniel tells about only two of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams—the large, manlike image and the gigantic tree chopped down—and his own dream about the four beasts and the Ancient of Days.<\/p>\n<p>The OT understanding of dreams had several significant features. Like the rest of the ancient world, people of God believed that God communicated in dreams. Yet there is in the OT accounts a reserve that is lacking in the perverse and obscene scenes often described in pagan dream records. Another distinction is that God is the initiator; he gives the revelatory dreams when, where, and to whom he pleases—a truth painfully learned by Saul (1 Sm 28:6, 15). More significantly, the secular approach to interpretation was specifically rejected. Understanding of dream symbols came not by research in dream books or by natural human ability. When Joseph interpreted the dreams of his two Egyptian fellow prisoners and later of the pharaoh himself, he insisted on giving full credit to God (Gn 40:8; 41:7, 25, 28, 39). Similarly, Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that the God in heaven who reveals secrets would make known the king’s dream and its meaning, in which task professional dream interpreters had failed (Dn 2:27-28).<\/p>\n<p>Unlike their neighbors, the OT saints knew that a dream was a “vision of the night” (Jb 33:15), and figuratively represented the spiritual realm (Jb 20:8; Pss 73:20; 126:1; Is 29:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>God used dreams in OT days to protect his servants (Gn 20), to reveal himself to people in a special way (28:12), to provide guidance in specific circumstances (31:10-13), and to forewarn about personal future events (37:5-20). Dreams were also used to predict the history of nations (chs 40–41) and to foretell the four great successive world empires that would be replaced by God’s eternal kingdom (Dn 4:19-27).<\/p>\n<p>During the approximately 1,000 years between Joseph and Daniel, only two dreams are recorded. One assured Gideon that God would defeat the Midianites (Jgs 7:13-15); the other concerns how Solomon became so wise after his humble, unselfish request for “an understanding heart” (1 Kgs 3:9, 15) thoroughly pleased God.<\/p>\n<p>In the final OT dreams, God gave Nebuchadnezzar an overview of future world history (Dn 2:31-45) and a prediction of the king’s temporary insanity (4:19-27). Daniel’s dream of the four beasts was similar to the king’s first dreams, but with added details concerning future international relations (7:13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Dreams were seen as one means by which God would speak to prophets (Nm 12:6). But how could the people of God distinguish a true prophet from an imposter? God gave two tests: the ability to predict the immediate future (Dt 18:22) and the consistency of the message with previously revealed truth (13:1-4). False prophets were put to death (v 5). False prophecy was a serious problem in the days of Jeremiah (Jer 23:25-32) and Zechariah (Zec 10:2). Despite repeated warnings by Jeremiah (Jer 23:32; 27:9-10; 29:8-9), the people preferred to listen to the false prophets with their empty messages of hope. Dreams were also a part of Israel’s prophetic hope (Jl 2:28).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentUse\">New Testament Use<\/p>\n<p>The few specific dreams in the NT all come from Matthew, five of these in the first two chapters. They emphasize the divine care and protection of the baby Jesus. First, there was God’s provision that Jesus would grow up in a home with a father and mother and thus avoid the cruelty and shame of being unjustly called an illegitimate child (Mt 1:19-23). Then the wise men were instructed in a dream not to tell Herod where Jesus was living (2:12). Jesus was further protected from jealous King Herod by the dream that told Joseph to flee to Egypt with Mary and the child (v 13). On Herod’s death, Joseph was divinely advised in a dream to return home from Egypt (v 20). Finally, God warned Joseph to avoid Judea, where Herod’s evil son Archelaus reigned, and to settle in Galilee instead (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>The only other specific dream mentioned in the NT prompted Pilate’s wife to warn her husband, “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man” (Mt 27:19, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Visions.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DREAMS<\/h3>\n<p>Thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep. Dreams have always fascinated people; the events experienced in dreams are too vivid and real to be ignored.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AncientUnderstanding\">Ancient Understanding<\/p>\n<p>From the earliest times people viewed dreams as a mystery, provoking speculation about another actual sphere of existence in which the person lived and acted while the body slept. Dreams, especially those of emperors and kings, were held to be messages from the gods.<\/p>\n<p>Ancient recorded dreams focused on three main areas: religion, politics, and personal destiny. Religious dreams called for piety and devotion to the gods. Political dreams supposedly forecast the outcome of battles and the future destiny of nations. Personal dreams guided family decisions and presaged serious crises.<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes the god took the initiative and forewarned the person about something unexpected. Sometimes the ruler or general would go to a pagan temple or holy place and sleep there, hoping to bring on a dream that would help him cope with some serious problem. In some dreams the message was clear; more often it had to be discovered by individuals who specialized in dream interpretation. Records were kept concerning specific dreams and the subsequent events.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestamentUse\">Old Testament Use<\/p>\n<p>Dreams played an important part in the lives of God’s people. Of the nearly 120 references to dreams in the OT, 52 come in Genesis during the early patriarchal period and 29 in the book of Daniel. In reality, however, only 14 specific dreams are recorded in the OT. Most of them are in Genesis and reflect God’s direct revelation to the patriarchs. Even Daniel tells about only two of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams—the large, manlike image and the gigantic tree chopped down—and his own dream about the four beasts and the Ancient of Days.<\/p>\n<p>The OT understanding of dreams had several significant features. Like the rest of the ancient world, people of God believed that God communicated in dreams. Yet there is in the OT accounts a reserve that is lacking in the perverse and obscene scenes often described in pagan dream records. Another distinction is that God is the initiator; he gives the revelatory dreams when, where, and to whom he pleases—a truth painfully learned by Saul (1 Sm 28:6, 15). More significantly, the secular approach to interpretation was specifically rejected. Understanding of dream symbols came not by research in dream books or by natural human ability. When Joseph interpreted the dreams of his two Egyptian fellow prisoners and later of the pharaoh himself, he insisted on giving full credit to God (Gn 40:8; 41:7, 25, 28, 39). Similarly, Daniel informed Nebuchadnezzar that the God in heaven who reveals secrets would make known the king’s dream and its meaning, in which task professional dream interpreters had failed (Dn 2:27-28).<\/p>\n<p>Unlike their neighbors, the OT saints knew that a dream was a “vision of the night” (Jb 33:15), and figuratively represented the spiritual realm (Jb 20:8; Pss 73:20; 126:1; Is 29:7-8).<\/p>\n<p>God used dreams in OT days to protect his servants (Gn 20), to reveal himself to people in a special way (28:12), to provide guidance in specific circumstances (31:10-13), and to forewarn about personal future events (37:5-20). Dreams were also used to predict the history of nations (chs 40–41) and to foretell the four great successive world empires that would be replaced by God’s eternal kingdom (Dn 4:19-27).<\/p>\n<p>During the approximately 1,000 years between Joseph and Daniel, only two dreams are recorded. One assured Gideon that God would defeat the Midianites (Jgs 7:13-15); the other concerns how Solomon became so wise after his humble, unselfish request for “an understanding heart” (1 Kgs 3:9, 15) thoroughly pleased God.<\/p>\n<p>In the final OT dreams, God gave Nebuchadnezzar an overview of future world history (Dn 2:31-45) and a prediction of the king’s temporary insanity (4:19-27). Daniel’s dream of the four beasts was similar to the king’s first dreams, but with added details concerning future international relations (7:13-14).<\/p>\n<p>Dreams were seen as one means by which God would speak to prophets (Nm 12:6). But how could the people of God distinguish a true prophet from an imposter? God gave two tests: the ability to predict the immediate future (Dt 18:22) and the consistency of the message with previously revealed truth (13:1-4). False prophets were put to death (v 5). False prophecy was a serious problem in the days of Jeremiah (Jer 23:25-32) and Zechariah (Zec 10:2). Despite repeated warnings by Jeremiah (Jer 23:32; 27:9-10; 29:8-9), the people preferred to listen to the false prophets with their empty messages of hope. Dreams were also a part of Israel’s prophetic hope (Jl 2:28).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestamentUse\">New Testament Use<\/p>\n<p>The few specific dreams in the NT all come from Matthew, five of these in the first two chapters. They emphasize the divine care and protection of the baby Jesus. First, there was God’s provision that Jesus would grow up in a home with a father and mother and thus avoid the cruelty and shame of being unjustly called an illegitimate child (Mt 1:19-23). Then the wise men were instructed in a dream not to tell Herod where Jesus was living (2:12). Jesus was further protected from jealous King Herod by the dream that told Joseph to flee to Egypt with Mary and the child (v 13). On Herod’s death, Joseph was divinely advised in a dream to return home from Egypt (v 20). Finally, God warned Joseph to avoid Judea, where Herod’s evil son Archelaus reigned, and to settle in Galilee instead (v 22).<\/p>\n<p>The only other specific dream mentioned in the NT prompted Pilate’s wife to warn her husband, “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man” (Mt 27:19, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Prophecy; Visions.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DREAMS Thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep. Dreams have always fascinated people; the events experienced in dreams are too vivid and real to be ignored. Ancient Understanding From the earliest times people viewed dreams as a mystery, provoking speculation about another actual sphere of existence in which the person lived and acted while the body slept. Dreams, especially those of emperors and kings, were held to be messages from the gods. Ancient recorded dreams focused on th...","summary_en":"DREAMS Thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep. Dreams have always fascinated people; the events experienced in dreams are too vivid and real to be ignored. Ancient Understanding From the earliest times people viewed dreams as a mystery, provoking speculation about another actual sphere of existence in which the person lived and acted while the body slept. Dreams, especially those of emperors and kings, were held to be messages from the gods. Ancient recorded dreams focused on th...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36062,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45083,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:22","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","summary_en":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72709,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:22","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","summary_en":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100335,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:22","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","summary_en":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":127961,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 18:22","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 18:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>18:22<\/strong> Any prophet whose <em>prediction<\/em> fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.<\/p>","summary_ro":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","summary_en":"18:22 Any prophet whose prediction fails must be branded as false, even if he claims to speak for God. The mere claim is insufficient if it goes unfulfilled.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64404,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"False Prophets","title_en":"False Prophets","content_ro":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","summary_ro":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","summary_en":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92030,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"False Prophets","title_en":"False Prophets","content_ro":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","summary_ro":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","summary_en":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":119656,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"False Prophets","title_en":"False Prophets","content_ro":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","summary_ro":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","summary_en":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147282,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"False Prophets","title_en":"False Prophets","content_ro":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>False Prophets<\/h3>\n<p>The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, many people doubted that God’s word through his true prophets would ever be fulfilled (see Isa 5:19). Others denied that anything would happen within their lifetimes. Might not the punishment that had so often been delayed be delayed a little longer?<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel prophesied that in the coming judgment upon Jerusalem, false prophets would be cut off so that people would no longer be confused about who the true prophets were (Ezek 13:8-9). There would also be no more delay to God’s judgment—the Lord was coming very soon to fulfill the words he had spoken (13:11). Everyone would see which words God had really spoken and which words the false prophets had conjured out of their own imaginations.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned of the presence of false prophets in the future (Matt 24:11-28), and his early followers encountered numerous false prophets (see, e.g., Acts 13:6-12; 2 Pet 2:1-3). Believers can often recognize false prophets by their incorrect teaching about Christ, which demonstrates that they are not operating under the Spirit of God (1 Jn 4:1-3).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 13:1-5; 18:22; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 6:13-15; 14:13-16; 20:1-6; 28:1-17; 29:21-32; 50:6; Ezek 13:1-23; 22:28; Mic 3:5; 2 Cor 11:13-15; 2 Tim 4:3-4; 2 Pet 2:1-3<\/p>","summary_ro":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","summary_en":"False Prophets The Bible tells of many individuals who set themselves up as prophets on their own authority. They had no true calling from God but nonetheless claimed to speak for him. Often it was hard for people to discern the difference between true and false prophets, especially since false prophets usually told them what they wanted to hear (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:10-14; Jer 28:1-4). Because of this difficulty, and the Lord’s merciful delay in bringing judgment upon his rebellious people, m...","source":"ThemeNotes.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"}}