Citește Biblia

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":8108,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24475,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":28125,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offense Offend","title_en":"Offense Offend","content_ro":"<h3>OFFEND, OFFENSE<\/h3>\n<p>Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DoingWrong\">Doing Wrong<\/p>\n<p>In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man.<\/p>\n<p>Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the people of Edom had grievously offended in taking vengeance on Judah, and so the hand of the Lord was against them in judgment (Ez 25:12-13). Israel commited an offense in their worship of Baal (Hos 13:1). The breaking of God’s law is spoken of as an “offense committed” (Dt 19:15; cf. 22:26; 25:2). In the NT, James (Jas 2:10; 3:2) speaks of offenses against God and against his law.<\/p>\n<p>There are many passages in the Bible addressing one man’s offense against another: for example, Abraham’s against Abimelech (Gn 20:9), or Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker against their master (40:1). Sometimes it is an alleged offense and no actual wrong has been done (e.g., Gn 31:36; 2 Kgs 18:14; Jer 37:18). Paul, in his defense before the Roman governor Festus, said, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all” (Acts 25:8, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Bible speaks about dealing with real offenses against God and people. Offenses should be acknowledged and confessed (Hos 5:15). One’s proper resolution before God is “I will not offend any more” (Jb 34:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). One needs to make amends for offenses (Eccl 10:4) and to forgive the offenses of others (Prv 17:9; 19:11). Jesus Christ died for our offenses (Rom 4:25; 5:15-21), so that in turning to him there is forgiveness for all sins.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CausingAnothertoSin\">Causing Another to Sin<\/p>\n<p>The noun “offense” and the verb “offend” are also used in reference to a person being caused to stumble or to do what is wrong. There are three ways in which this may happen:<\/p>\n<p>1. There may be something in the individual that causes him or her to stumble. Jesus expressed the seriousness of this, and though speaking metaphorically, he indicated the strenuous steps of prevention (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9).<\/p>\n<li>2. There may be something in a person that causes offense to others. Jesus said, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Mt 18:7, <span>kjv<\/span>). There are, in fact, many NT passages that insist that one should live so as not to cause others to stumble (Rom 14:13). The apostle Paul says, “Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble” (Rom 14:20-21, <span>nlt<\/span>; cf. 1 Cor 10:32; 2 Cor 6:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. However, people may be offended at the truth through no fault of the person who presents it. Isaiah speaks of God as “a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Is 8:14) in that people would not always accept his demands and the way of faith in him. The NT takes these same words and applies them to the offense of the gospel of Christ (Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pt 2:8). In the time of his ministry there were those who were offended at Jesus—at his lowly birth (Mt 13:57), at what he said and did (15:12), or because of the cost of following him (13:21). Even disciples were capable of being offended and turning aside (Jn 6:61). In the end all were offended and fled from him (Mt 26:31, 56). Finally, the apostle Paul spoke of the offense in the preaching of the cross of Christ. He could have chosen to preach a popular message and avoided persecution, a “message that doesn’t offend anyone” (Gal 5:11). He chose rather to preach the cross even though it was a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFEND, OFFENSE<\/h3>\n<p>Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DoingWrong\">Doing Wrong<\/p>\n<p>In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man.<\/p>\n<p>Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the people of Edom had grievously offended in taking vengeance on Judah, and so the hand of the Lord was against them in judgment (Ez 25:12-13). Israel commited an offense in their worship of Baal (Hos 13:1). The breaking of God’s law is spoken of as an “offense committed” (Dt 19:15; cf. 22:26; 25:2). In the NT, James (Jas 2:10; 3:2) speaks of offenses against God and against his law.<\/p>\n<p>There are many passages in the Bible addressing one man’s offense against another: for example, Abraham’s against Abimelech (Gn 20:9), or Pharaoh’s chief butler and chief baker against their master (40:1). Sometimes it is an alleged offense and no actual wrong has been done (e.g., Gn 31:36; 2 Kgs 18:14; Jer 37:18). Paul, in his defense before the Roman governor Festus, said, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all” (Acts 25:8, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Bible speaks about dealing with real offenses against God and people. Offenses should be acknowledged and confessed (Hos 5:15). One’s proper resolution before God is “I will not offend any more” (Jb 34:31, <span>rsv<\/span>). One needs to make amends for offenses (Eccl 10:4) and to forgive the offenses of others (Prv 17:9; 19:11). Jesus Christ died for our offenses (Rom 4:25; 5:15-21), so that in turning to him there is forgiveness for all sins.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CausingAnothertoSin\">Causing Another to Sin<\/p>\n<p>The noun “offense” and the verb “offend” are also used in reference to a person being caused to stumble or to do what is wrong. There are three ways in which this may happen:<\/p>\n<p>1. There may be something in the individual that causes him or her to stumble. Jesus expressed the seriousness of this, and though speaking metaphorically, he indicated the strenuous steps of prevention (Mt 5:29-30; 18:8-9).<\/p>\n<li>2. There may be something in a person that causes offense to others. Jesus said, “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Mt 18:7, <span>kjv<\/span>). There are, in fact, many NT passages that insist that one should live so as not to cause others to stumble (Rom 14:13). The apostle Paul says, “Don’t tear apart the work of God over what you eat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with these things in themselves. But it is wrong to eat anything if it makes another person stumble. Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble” (Rom 14:20-21, <span>nlt<\/span>; cf. 1 Cor 10:32; 2 Cor 6:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. However, people may be offended at the truth through no fault of the person who presents it. Isaiah speaks of God as “a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Is 8:14) in that people would not always accept his demands and the way of faith in him. The NT takes these same words and applies them to the offense of the gospel of Christ (Rom 9:32-33; 1 Pt 2:8). In the time of his ministry there were those who were offended at Jesus—at his lowly birth (Mt 13:57), at what he said and did (15:12), or because of the cost of following him (13:21). Even disciples were capable of being offended and turning aside (Jn 6:61). In the end all were offended and fled from him (Mt 26:31, 56). Finally, the apostle Paul spoke of the offense in the preaching of the cross of Christ. He could have chosen to preach a popular message and avoided persecution, a “message that doesn’t offend anyone” (Gal 5:11). He chose rather to preach the cross even though it was a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Cor 1:23).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFEND, OFFENSE Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble. Doing Wrong In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man. Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the peopl...","summary_en":"OFFEND, OFFENSE Words used two ways in the Bible: doing what is wrong oneself, or causing someone else to do wrong or to stumble. Doing Wrong In both the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT there are several words for sin or wrongdoing having a variety of different translations. With the word “offend” or “offense,” the emphasis is on the sin being against a person or against the law, an offense against either God or man. Sin is fundamentally an offense against God. For example, the peopl...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":45146,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","summary_en":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72772,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","summary_en":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100398,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","summary_en":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128024,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:3","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:3<\/strong> At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was <em>forty lashes.<\/em> Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","summary_en":"25:3 At a flogging, the maximum number of strikes allowed was forty lashes. Fewer could be applied depending on the case (25:2). As people created in the image of God, even wrongdoers were entitled to mercy and respect. In later Judaism, thirty-nine lashes were given (see 2 Cor 11:24 and note).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":1791,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Animals","title_en":"Animals","content_ro":"<h3>ANIMALS<\/h3>\n<p>In biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals as object lessons.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical approach to classification of animals is somewhat different from the system of classification used by biologists today. The present system of classification, which traces back to Carolus Linnaeus (an 18th-century Swedish botanist), is based on structure, both internal and external. The biblical basis of classification is habitat. Thus Genesis 1 speaks of aquatic organisms (v 20); aerial organisms (v 21); animals that crawl on the ground (v 24); cattle or domesticated animals (animals that live in association with humans) (v 24); and wild animals (v 24). The same system of classification is followed in Leviticus 11 and throughout Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the divergence between systems of classification, the various animals of the Bible will be listed here in alphabetical order—including reptiles, fish, and even invertebrates such as insects, spiders, worms, and sponges. Birds are discussed in a separate article.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Adder<\/p>\n<p>• Ant<\/p>\n<p>• Antelope<\/p>\n<p>• Ape<\/p>\n<p>• Asp<\/p>\n<p>• Ass<\/p>\n<p>• Badger<\/p>\n<p>• Bat<\/p>\n<p>• Bear<\/p>\n<p>• Bee<\/p>\n<p>• Behemoth<\/p>\n<p>• Camel<\/p>\n<p>• Caterpillar<\/p>\n<p>• Cattle<\/p>\n<p>• Chameleon<\/p>\n<p>• Coral<\/p>\n<p>• Cricket<\/p>\n<p>• Crocodile<\/p>\n<p>• Deer<\/p>\n<p>• Dog<\/p>\n<p>• Donkey<\/p>\n<p>• Dragon<\/p>\n<p>• Fish<\/p>\n<p>• Flea<\/p>\n<p>• Fly<\/p>\n<p>• Fox<\/p>\n<p>• Frog<\/p>\n<p>• Gazelle<\/p>\n<p>• Gecko<\/p>\n<p>• Gnat<\/p>\n<p>• Goat<\/p>\n<p>• Grasshopper<\/p>\n<p>• Hare<\/p>\n<p>• Hippopotamus<\/p>\n<p>• Horse<\/p>\n<p>• Hyena<\/p>\n<p>• Jackal<\/p>\n<p>• Leech<\/p>\n<p>• Leopard<\/p>\n<p>• Leviathan<\/p>\n<p>• Lion<\/p>\n<p>• Lizard<\/p>\n<p>• Locust<\/p>\n<p>• Mole<\/p>\n<p>• Moth<\/p>\n<p>• Mouse<\/p>\n<p>• Mule<\/p>\n<p>• Pig<\/p>\n<p>• Porcupine<\/p>\n<p>• Scorpion<\/p>\n<p>• Sheep<\/p>\n<p>• Snail<\/p>\n<p>• Snake<\/p>\n<p>• Spider<\/p>\n<p>• Sponge<\/p>\n<p>• Unicorn<\/p>\n<p>• Wasp<\/p>\n<p>• Whale<\/p>\n<p>• Wild Ox<\/p>\n<p>• Wolf<\/p>\n<p>• Worm<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Adder\">Adder<\/p>\n<p>One of the 20 poisonous snakes found in Israel and surrounding countries, also referred to as cockatrice and viper. True vipers (genus <em>Cerastes, Echis colorata,<\/em> and <em>Vipera palestina<\/em>) also exist there, poisonous snakes with curved fangs that spring into position when the snake strikes. The horned viper <em>(Cerastes hasselquistii)<\/em> may attack horses. It is 12 to 18 inches (30 to 46 centimeters) long and often lies in ambush in the sand with only its eyes and the hornlike protrusions on its head visible.<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and John the Baptist referred to the viper several times (Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33). The reference in Acts 28:3 is probably to a small viper <em>(Vipera aspis)<\/em> that strikes rapidly and is very pugnacious. It is found in southern Europe and hisses each time it inhales and exhales. The poison of vipers attacks the respiratory system and disintegrates red blood cells.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ant\">Ant<\/p>\n<p>Mentioned only twice in the Bible, both times in the book of Proverbs. For many years Solomon was charged with a biological error when he referred to the ant as providing her meat in the summer and gathering her food in the harvest (Prv 6:8). Critics of the Bible were quick to point out that, so far as was then known, ants do not store up food. They assumed that Solomon had probably kicked open an ant hill and mistaken the pupal cases (pods in which immature ants grow to maturity) for grain or had observed ants carrying bits of grain, leaves, and other matter to their nests.<\/p>\n<p>At least three species of grain-storing ants are now known—two occur in Israel and the other in Mediterranean countries. The particular species referred to by Solomon (Prv 6:6-8; 30:24-25) is probably the harvester ant <em>(Messor semirufus).<\/em> Its granaries are flat chambers connected by galleries irregularly scattered over an area about six feet (1.8 meters) in diameter and about a foot (.3 meter) deep in the ground. Seeds are collected from the ground or picked from plants. The head, or radicle, which is the softest part of the kernel, is bitten off to prevent germination, and the chaff and empty capsules are discarded on kitchen middens (refuse piles) outside the nest. Individual granaries may be 5 inches (12.7 centimeters) in diameter and a half inch (1.2 centimeters) high. Some nests are known to be 40 feet (12 meters) in diameter and 6 to 7 feet (approx. 2 meters) deep with several entrances.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Antelope\">Antelope<\/p>\n<p>Several antelope-like creatures are referred to in the Scriptures. One seems to be the white oryx <em>(Oryx leucoryx),<\/em> referred to in Deuteronomy 14:5 (<span>kjv<\/span> “wild ox”; <span>rsv<\/span> “antelope”) and Isaiah 51:20 (<span>kjv<\/span> “wild bull”; <span>RSV <\/span>“antelope”). The oryx was probably the antelope, commonly used for food because its long horns made it relatively easy to catch.<\/p>\n<p>Another antelope mentioned in the Bible is the addax <em>(Addax nasomaculatus),<\/em> probably the “pygarg” of Deuteronomy 14:5 (<span>kjv<\/span>). It is a native of North Africa with grayish white hinder parts, a white patch on the forehead, and twisted and ringed horns. The word “pygarg” comes from a Greek word meaning “white rump.” The addax is about the size of a donkey. Its body is closely covered with short hair. It has a short mane on the underside of its neck that makes the head look somewhat like that of a goat. The hooves are broad and flat, and the tail resembles that of a donkey. It is common in Africa and in Arabia, where Arabs hunt it with falcons and dogs.<\/p>\n<p>Antelopes are very graceful and run with their heads held high. Both sexes have long, permanent, hollow horns. With the oryx the horns go straight back; addax horns are twisted and ringed. Antelope are alert, wary, and keen sighted. They are usually found in herds of from two to a dozen. If injured or brought to bay, an antelope attacks with its head lowered so that the sharp horns point forward. Antelopes feed on grasses and shrubs, drinking from streams and water holes. When water is scarce, they eat melons and succulent bulbs. Both addax and oryx were ceremonially clean in Jewish law.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ape\">Ape<\/p>\n<p>Primate not native to Palestine. The two references to apes in the OT (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) refer to their importation by King Solomon with other treasures on board the ships of his mercantile fleet. There is some question concerning the origin of those primates. Some believe that the mention of “ivory” in the same verses suggests they came from East Africa and that they were indeed apes, that is, tailless primates. Others, believing they came from India or Ceylon, suggest that they were actually monkeys. There the baboon (genus Papeio), a large monkey, was considered sacred to the god Thoth. Males of that genus were kept in temples, and the more docile females were often kept as house pets. Such baboons frequently had some of their teeth removed or ground down to lessen the danger of their biting. A number of mummified baboons have been found in Egypt, indicating the high regard in which they were held.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Asp\">Asp<\/p>\n<p>Poisonous snake. Most biblical references to the asp (Dt 32:33) seem to be to the Egyptian cobra <em>(Naja haje),<\/em> which conceals itself in holes, walls, and rocks and has the ability to expand its neck by raising its anterior ribs so as to enlarge the front of its breast into the shape of a flat disc. Its potent poison can cause death in 30 minutes. It attains a length of about 80 inches (2 meters). The fangs are permanently erect, not movable as in the vipers (the common poisonous snakes of North America; only the coral snake in America has permanently erect fangs). Cobra poison attacks the nervous system, causing muscular paralysis. The Egyptians looked upon it as a sacred creature; they regarded it as a protector since it fed on the rodents that ate their crops. The “fiery serpents” (Nm 21:6; Dt 8:15, both <span>rsv<\/span>) may have been cobras; “fiery” probably refers to the burning fever caused by their venom. Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 (“flying serpent”) may refer to the hood of the cobra.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ass\">Ass<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Donkey (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Badger\">Badger<\/p>\n<p>Small hoofed mammal. What the <span>kjv<\/span> calls a “coney,” modern translations name “rock badger” (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7; Ps 104:18; Prv 30:26). The rock badger spoken of in the Bible is probably the Syrian rock hyrax <em>(Hyrax syriaca),<\/em> the only species of hyrax found outside Africa. This small ungulate (having hooflike toenails) lives among rocks from the Dead Sea valley to Mt Hermon. It is strictly a herbivorous (plant-eating) animal about the size of a rabbit. It resembles a guinea pig more than a rabbit, having quite inconspicuous ears and a very small tail. It has broad nails with four toes on its forelegs and three on its hind legs, the toes being connected with skin almost like a web. Pads acting as sucking discs under its feet enable it to keep its footing on slippery rocks. With its yellow and brown fur, it is sometimes called the bear rat because of its resemblance to a tailless rat. It is also equipped with black whiskers that may be seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long.<\/p>\n<p>These rock badgers, or hyraxes, live together in colonies of from 6 to 50 animals, often sunning themselves on rocks. They are difficult to catch. Guards are posted, and if approaching danger is sighted, the whole group will scurry for cover, warned by the sharp whistles of the guards. Thus they are commended for taking refuge in the rocks (Ps 104:18) and are called wise for making “their houses in the rocks” (Prv 30:24, 26, <span>kjv<\/span>). The badger is not a ruminant (does not chew its cud), but the motion of its jaws may suggest that it chews its cud. That is probably why it was included with other cud-chewing animals in the Jewish food laws (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7). It was forbidden to the Jews as food because it did not have cloven hooves. Some Arabs eat and even prize its meat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bat\">Bat<\/p>\n<p>Flying mammals according to modern classification. They have hair and provide milk for their young. The Bible classifies them with other aerial creatures. Bats take shelter in caves, crevices, tree cavities, buildings, and also in exposed places on trees. In colder areas they hibernate or migrate. The normal resting position for a bat is hanging head downward. Bats “swim” through the air rather than fly because they move with their legs as well as with their wings.<\/p>\n<p>The bat’s thumb is free and terminates in a single hook claw used for climbing and hanging. The hind feet have five toes, all pointing the same way. The large chest accommodates the powerful muscles needed for flying. Because they orient themselves by echo location, the sense of hearing is very well developed.<\/p>\n<p>Most bats are insect eaters, seizing insects in flight. Many insectivorous bats also eat some fruit. Other bats feed exclusively, usually in groups, on fruit and green vegetation. Fruit-eating bats generally live in the tropics where fruit is constantly ripening, although some have been found in the Holy Land. These bats tend to be larger than the insectivores, having a wingspread of up to five feet (1.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>A third group includes flower-eating bats that feed on pollen and nectar. These small bats with long pointed heads and long tongues are found only in tropical and semitropical regions. Three species of vampire bats, which do not occur in the Holy Land, eat blood by making a small incision and lapping it up. Carnivorous (meat-eating) bats prey on birds, lizards, and frogs. Fish-eating bats catch fish at or near the water surface.<\/p>\n<p>Eight varieties of bats are known in the Holy Land. One of them, the little brown bat (genus <em>Myotis<\/em>), is worldwide in its distribution. It is insectivorous and probably has the widest distribution of any nonhuman terrestrial mammal. Brown bats are mostly cave dwellers. The females form maternity colonies that may number in the tens of thousands.<\/p>\n<p>Two species of mouse-tailed bats (genus <em>Rhinopoma<\/em>) are found in the Holy Land. Their tails are nearly as long as the head and body combined. They are colonial, roosting in caves, rock clefts, wells, pyramids, palaces, and houses. Like the brown bat, they are insectivorous. The slit-faced or hollow-faced bats (genus <em>Nycteris<\/em>) are also found in the Holy Land. They are insectivorous and roost in groups from 6 to 20.<\/p>\n<p>The bats found in the Holy Land vary in size from that of a mouse to the size of a rat; the largest species measures more than 20 inches (51 centimeters) across the wings. The bat was unclean to the Jews (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bear\">Bear<\/p>\n<p>Large, heavy, big-headed mammal with short, powerful limbs, a short tail, and small eyes and ears. Bears have a “plantigrade” walk: they walk on both the sole and heel as humans do. The Palestinian bear is a Syrian version of the brown bear <em>(Ursus arctos syriacus).<\/em> It can grow to a height of 6 feet (1.8 meters) and may weigh as much as 500 pounds (227 kilograms).<\/p>\n<p>Bears have an excellent sense of smell but less developed senses of sight and hearing. They are omnivorous (eating any kind of food); they subsist largely on vegetation, fruits, insects, and fish.<\/p>\n<p>Bears are usually peaceful and inoffensive, but if they think they must defend themselves (Lam 3:10) or their young (2 Sm 17:8; Prv 17:12; Hos 13:8), they may be formidable and dangerous adversaries. David boasted of his role as a bear killer (1 Sm 17:34-37). Since a blow from a bear’s paw can be fatal, David’s courage and strength as a young shepherd in running after a bear and wrenching one of his father’s sheep from its jaws were noteworthy.<\/p>\n<p>Some biblical passages seem to imply that bears attacked for no apparent reason (e.g., Prv 28:15; Am 5:19). At other times they were God’s instruments of punishment, as in the story of Elisha and the two she-bears (2 Kgs 2:24). The bear and the lion, often mentioned together in the Bible (1 Sm 17:37), were the two largest and strongest beasts of prey in the Holy Land. Thus they symbolized both strength and terror (Am 5:19).<\/p>\n<p>In biblical times bears seem to have roamed all over Palestine. Today they are found only in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains, and even there they are rare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bee\">Bee<\/p>\n<p>One of two domesticated insects <em>(Apis mellifica),<\/em> the other being the silkworm. Bees gather nectar from flowers, transferring pollen from one flower to another in the process. It is believed that they convey the location of sources of nectar to other bees through a bee “dance,” which may indicate both distance and direction. Bees are sensitive to four colors: blue-green, yellow-green, blue-violet, and ultra-violet (invisible to humans).<\/p>\n<p>The wild bees of the Holy Land are especially noted for their ferocity in attack. Only the female “worker” bees sting people and animals, the virulence of their venom increasing in warm weather. A number of biblical passages allude to the irritable, vindictive nature of bees and to the painful stings they inflict (Dt 1:44; Ps 118:12; Is 7:18).<\/p>\n<p>One reference calls attention to the fact that in semidesert regions a dead animal’s carcass, stripped to the bone by jackals or vultures and dried in the sun, can provide wild bees an excellent place to start a new colony (Jgs 14:5-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Egyptians considered the bee sacred. In ancient Greece candles were made from beeswax. In the Holy Land, beekeeping was probably not practiced until the Hellenistic period (second century <span>BC<\/span>), although Ezekiel 27:17 suggests that it may have been practiced earlier. If domestic honey was not available to the Hebrews, wild honey certainly was, and travelers would be on the lookout for caches of honey in rocky clefts and other likely places. The Philistines and the Hittites practiced beekeeping in their cities.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible contains many references to bees and bee products. A bee swarm was a valuable asset, though the price of honey itself was low. Honey was sometimes eaten with the honeycomb (Sg 5:1). Honey also had uses other than food, e.g., in embalming.<\/p>\n<p>The land of Israel was described as a land flowing with milk and honey. Honey was a major source of sweetening in the ancient Near East—hence, its importance (cf. Jgs 14:8-9). Actually the Hebrew word for “honey” may include not only bee honey but also the sweet syrup extracted from such fruits as figs, dates, and grapes. Thus “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Ex 3:8, <span>rsv<\/span>) does not necessarily stand for a land of bees but for a land rich in sweetness.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Honey.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Behemoth\">Behemoth<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Hippopotamus (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Camel\">Camel<\/p>\n<p>Large beast of burden. Unintelligent, ill-natured, and quarrelsome, the camel <em>(Camelus dromedarius)<\/em> is nevertheless a blessing to people living in the desert and on its borders because it is especially adapted to that habitat. It has been called the ship of the desert. Having thick elastic pads of fibrous tissue on its feet, it can walk on hot desert sands. It can go without water for long periods and can subsist on vegetation growing on the saline soils. The camel’s nostrils are pinched together and can be closed at will to prevent penetration of sand during violent sandstorms.<\/p>\n<p>Camels are used for transporting both goods and people. A person riding a camel can cover from 60 to 75 miles (96.5 to 121 kilometers) in a day. A camel can carry a load weighing 600 pounds (272 kilograms) or more. Camels were used heavily in the spice trade (Gn 37:25) and traveled regularly in camel trains between Arabia, Egypt, and Assyria. They were also ridden in time of war (Jgs 6:5). A camel can even be hitched to a plow in areas where the land is cultivated.<\/p>\n<p>The hair shed by camels during the early spring is preserved and used in weaving cloth and making tents. As much as 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) of hair can be obtained from one camel. A rough cloak of camel’s hair, as worn by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4), is still worn by Bedouins today. A camel’s hair garment was also the sign of the prophetic office (Zec 13:4).<\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of camel occur within the one-humped species, the slow burden-bearing camel referred to in Genesis 37:25 and the fast dromedary of 1 Samuel 30:17. The dromedary can stand seven feet (2.1 meters) tall and measure as much as nine feet (2.7 meters) from the muzzle to the tip of the tail. With its three-chambered stomach, which can hold from 15 to 30 quarts (14.2 to 28.4 liters) of liquid, it can go for as long as 5 days during the summer or 25 days in winter without drinking. The camel’s hump is a reserve store of fat, making it possible for the animal to subsist on very little food during a desert journey.<\/p>\n<p>Another species of camel, the Bactrian camel <em>(Camelus bactrianus),<\/em> is also resident in the Holy Land. It has two humps. It is heavier, bigger, and has longer hair than the one-humped camel and is slower than the swift dromedary. Isaiah 21:7 may refer to the Bactrian camel; both kinds of camel are referred to in Esther 8:10 (<span>kjv<\/span>). Camels ranked in importance with sheep, cattle, and asses in OT times. A third of the 66 biblical references to the camel lists it with other animals.<\/p>\n<p>Camels are ruminants (cud-chewing mammals) but do not have cloven hooves. Thus, they were included in the list of unclean beasts, forbidden by the Israelites as food (Lv 11:4; Dt 14:7). They are eaten by Arabs, however, who also drink their milk (cf. Gn 32:15).<\/p>\n<p>Abraham had camels in Egypt (Gn 12:16). At first Job had 3,000 camels (Jb 1:3) and after his recovery, 6,000 (Jb 42:12). Although wide use of camels does not seem to have begun until shortly before 1000 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 6:5), Sumerian texts from the Old Babylonian period list camels and indicate that they had been domesticated. Camel bones and figurines have been found at various eastern archaeological sites dating from well before 1200 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Caterpillar\">Caterpillar<\/p>\n<p>Larval stage of insects characterized by complete metamorphosis. Such insects pass through four stages: egg, larva or caterpillar, pupa, and adult. Bees, flies, moths, and butterflies all pass through a larval or caterpillar stage.<\/p>\n<p>The word “caterpillar” occurs three times in the <span>nlt<\/span> (1 Kgs 8:37; 2 Chr 6:28; Ps 78:46). In the book of Joel that same Hebrew word is translated “locust” (1:4; 2:25, <span>nlt<\/span>). The locust and grasshopper to which the Hebrew word refers have an incomplete type of metamorphosis with only three stages: egg, nymph, and adult. The nymph is a miniature adult in which the wings are not fully developed, though their outline may be present. There are several nymph stages known as instars. The reference is to one of the last instars, in which the wing structures are still folded together and enclosed in a sac but are nevertheless clearly recognizable. That form of the insect is about an inch (2.5 centimeters) long.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cattle\">Cattle<\/p>\n<p>Domestic animals of the bovine species <em>(Bos primigenius).<\/em> The OT often emphasized the beauty of cattle. Egypt was rich in cattle, especially in the Nile River delta area (Goshen), where the Hebrews settled under Joseph.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars believe that milk rather than meat was the foremost consideration in the domestication of cattle and that in early civilizations meat supplies came chiefly from wild game. Cattle also supplied strong hides that supplanted wood in the manufacture of shields. Their dung was a source of fuel when wood was scarce (Ez 4:15). They were used as beasts of burden and for plowing. Development of wheeled transportation was associated more closely with cattle than with any other animal.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical term “cattle” often refers to all domesticated animals or livestock (Gn 1:24; 2:20; 7:23; 47:6, 16-17; Ex 9:3-7; Nm 3:41, 45). Occasionally, the term was used to refer to all large domestic animals (Nm 31:9; 32:26), although sometimes the word as used in the <span>kjv<\/span> refers only to sheep and goats (Gn 30:32, 39, 43; 31:8, 10; Is 7:25; 43:23).<\/p>\n<p>Probably several kinds of cattle were domesticated in the Holy Land. Small, short-legged, black or brown shorthorn cattle were found in the southern part of Judah; that type submitted easily to the yoke and was prominent in agricultural operations. Along the coast a larger variety was found, and the wild districts east of the Jordan River were populated with a breed of huge black cattle.<\/p>\n<p>Cattle breeding was widely practiced by the patriarchs (cf. Gn 32:15; Jb 21:10). Strict laws in Mesopotamia, as well as in Israel, penalized the owner of a bull that gored a man or other cattle (Ex 21:28-36). Bulls were sometimes employed figuratively as pictures of strength or violence (Dt 33:17; Pss 22:12; 68:30; Is 10:13). For breeding purposes one bull is normally adequate for about 30 cows, but many more were kept since bulls were widely used in Israel for sacrifices. They might be used as a general sacrifice (Lv 22:23; Nm 23:1) or for special sacrifices (Jgs 6:25; 1 Sm 1:24). Particular sacrifices were offered at the consecration of priests (Ex 29:1), consecration of an altar (Nm 7), purification of the Levites (Nm 8), sin offerings (Lv 16), day of the new moon (Nm 28:11-14), Passover (Nm 28:19), Feast of Weeks (Nm 28:27), Feast of Trumpets (Nm 29:1-2), Day of Atonement (Nm 29:7-9), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Nm 29:12-38). The Feast of Tabernacles required the largest number of bulls for burnt offerings of all the annual feasts, with a total of 71 being slaughtered during the course of eight days.<\/p>\n<p>Calves were sometimes referred to as “sons of the herd” in the original Hebrew (Gn 18:8; 1 Sm 6:7; 14:32). The calf, a symbol of peacefulness (Is 11:6), was also used figuratively to refer to the weak (Ps 68:30). A calf’s head decorated the back of Solomon’s throne (1 Kgs 10:19). Calves were sometimes fattened in stalls to keep them from running off weight in the field (Am 6:4; Mal 4:2; Lk 15:23) or were kept around the house; the witch of Endor kept a calf in her house that she killed and served to Saul and his men (1 Sm 28:24-25). Calves supplied veal (Gn 18:7), considered a delicacy by the wealthy; Amos referred to stall-fattened calves in a denunciation of luxurious and careless living (Am 6:4). Calves also supplied meat for all Saul’s armies at the great slaughter of the Philistines (1 Sm 14:32). The “fatted calf” served roasted or boiled was gourmet fare, suitable for the finest banquet (Gn 18:7; Mt 22:4; Lk 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Cattle were subject to the law of firstlings (Ex 13:12). They were a mark of wealth (Gn 13:2) and were considered proper booty of war (Jos 8:2). Aaron, the first high priest, made a golden calf as a rival to the ark of the covenant (Ex 32; Dt 9:16, 21). Even though he represented the calf as an image of the invisible God, it was especially offensive because the calf was a fertility symbol related to Egyptian and Canaanite practices. Two calves were later made by Jeroboam I of Israel (930–909 <span>BC<\/span>) for his shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28-33). Hosea’s prophetic denunciations of calf worship were directed at those shrines (Hos 8:5-6; 13:2).<\/p>\n<p>An ox is an adult castrated bull. A steer is a young ox. Oxen were used to do work (Nm 7:3; Dt 22:10; 25:4), though for moving heavy objects, cows were typically favored over bulls because of their more docile nature. Oxen were also used as pack animals (1 Chr 12:40, although they did not have the endurance of the ass, camel, or mule. They usually fed on grass (Nm 22:4; Ps 106:20), but they also ate straw (Is 11:7) and salted fodder (Is 30:24) and could be kept in a stable (Lk 13:15). Oxen could not be offered as sacrifices because they had been castrated (Lv 22:24). They could be used for food but were rarely eaten. Possession of an ox and an ass was regarded as the bare minimum for existence in the ancient Palestinian agriculture economy (Jb 24:3; cf. Ex 20:17).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Agriculture; Food and Food Preparation; Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Chameleon\">Chameleon<\/p>\n<p>Lizard characterized by its ability to change color according to its surroundings <em>(Chameleon vulgaris).<\/em> To the Israelites the chameleon was ritually unclean (Lv 11:30). The Hebrew word for chameleon is derived from a word meaning “to pant.” A lizard’s lungs are very large, and in ancient times lizards were believed to live on air. A chameleon’s eyes move independently of each other; so at times one eye may be turned upward and the other downward. Chameleons live in trees and bushes, clinging to branches with their long tails.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Coral\">Coral<\/p>\n<p>Calcareous (lime-containing) skeletons of relatively simple marine organisms <em>(Corallium rubrum).<\/em> Red coral from the Mediterranean and Red Seas is widely used for jewelry and for medicinal purposes. While the animal is alive, the coral is green in color and shrublike in appearance, looking rather like an underwater plant since the coral animals are immobil. When the coral is removed from the water, it becomes hard and red in color.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient times coral was sometimes used as money, along with precious stones, pearls, and gold. Some believe the biblical reference in Lamentations 4:7 (<span>rsv<\/span>) is to pearls rather than to coral, but it is probable that the references in Job 28:18 and Ezekiel 27:16 are to the red coral (see <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cricket\">Cricket<\/p>\n<p>Insect of the order Orthptera related to grasshoppers and locusts. According to Leviticus 11:22, the cricket was edible. The reference may be to one of the growth stages of the locust.<\/p>\n<p>The <span>kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word as “beetle.” Beetles are insects with chewing mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the fore pair being hard and sheathlike and the hind pair being membranous and folded under the fore pair. Some beetles are carnivorous, others are chiefly herbivorous. Some are aquatic, some produce a secretion that blisters the skin, some damage fabrics, some damage crops, and some feed on other insects that are harmful to humans. In ancient Egypt the beetle, or sacred scarab, was a symbol of the sun god Ra. Scarab seals and amulets were extremely popular in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Crocodile\">Crocodile<\/p>\n<p>Largest of all existing reptiles <em>(Crocodilus vulgaris),<\/em> attaining a length of well over 20 feet (6 meters). Crocodiles are characterized by large lizardlike bodies supported by short legs. The head terminates in a flattened snout armed with strong conical teeth, each of which is implanted in a distinct socket. New teeth growing from beneath continually replace those in use. The toes are webbed. The back and tail are protected by quadrangular horny shields of varying sizes arranged in regular rows and in contact with one another at the edges. The eyes are covered with movable lids that can be closed when the animal enters the water.<\/p>\n<p>The crocodile spends most of its time in the water where it feeds mainly on fish but also on aquatic birds and even small animals that come down to the water’s edge to drink. It is surprisingly fast and agile on dry land, even though its legs are so short that its belly and tail drag across the earth leaving a distinct path.<\/p>\n<p>Until the beginning of the 20th century, the crocodile was found in the marshes and small coastal rivers of western Palestine. A first-century Roman writer, Pliny, referred to a place in the Holy Land called Crocodeilopolis (“crocodile city”) to the south of Mt Carmel, and visitors to the Holy Land as late as the 19th century reported seeing crocodiles in that general region.<\/p>\n<p>The description of “Leviathan” in Job 41 seems to be based on the crocodile (thus the translation of the <span>nlt<\/span>). The “dragon” of Ezekiel 29:3, used figuratively of the Egyptian pharaoh, may be a reference to the crocodile.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Deer\">Deer<\/p>\n<p>Large ruminant (cud-chewing) animals. Only the males have antlers (branching horns). Deer antlers grow annually and are solid, in contrast to those of the antelope and the gazelle. Fully developed antlers are devoid of any covering of skin or horn and, for all practical purposes, may be regarded as a mass of dead bone carried for a certain time by the living animal.<\/p>\n<p>The end of the deer’s muzzle is naked in all species. The stomach is divided into a series of compartments, some of which are used to store partly chewed food. The food is later regurgitated, rechewed, and finally swallowed into a section of the stomach where true digestion takes place.<\/p>\n<p>Three species of deer were known in Palestine: the red deer <em>(Cervus elaphus),<\/em> the Persian fallow deer <em>(Dama mesopotamica),<\/em> and the roe deer <em>(Capreolus capreolus).<\/em> All are now extinct there. The last deer were hunted in the Holy Land in 1914. The red deer referred to in the Bible as “hart” (male), “stag” (male), or “hind” (female) stood about four feet (1.2 meters) high at the shoulder. It was gregarious (living in herds or flocks), each group remaining in a definite territory. Red deer grazed and browsed during the morning and late afternoon (Lam 1:6). The sexes remained in separate herds. The red deer was known for its leaping (Is 35:6) and sure-footedness in the mountains (Ps 18:33; Sg 2:8-9, 17; 8:14; Hb 3:19).<\/p>\n<p>The antlers of the Persian fallow deer (1 Kgs 4:23) were large, flattened, and palmated (shaped like an open palm with fingers extended), and its coat was a yellowbrown. It traveled in small groups, feeding mainly on grass in the morning and evening.<\/p>\n<p>The roe deer (Dt 14:5; 1 Kgs 4:23) was a small, graceful animal, dark reddish brown in summer and yellowish gray in winter. Its antlers were about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and had three points. The roe deer preferred sparsely wooded valleys and the lower slopes of mountains, grazing in open grasslands. It usually associated in family groups made up of the doe and her offspring. They were shy, yet very curious. The roe deer barked like a dog when disturbed, and they were excellent swimmers.<\/p>\n<p>There is some question as to whether the roe deer is actually referred to in such passages as 1 Kings 4:23; references may be to the fallow deer, although that animal does not seem to have lived in the southern part of Palestine around the Sinai Desert because of its need for ample amounts of food and water. Fallow deer were found in northern Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The hart (the male red deer) was listed among the clean beasts that Jewish law permitted as food (Dt 12:15, 22; 14:5), but deer were not listed among the animals appropriate for sacrifice. The hind (female red deer) normally gave birth to one calf at a time, though twins were born with some degree of regularity (Jb 39:1; Ps 29:9, <span>kjv<\/span>; Jer 14:5). The gestation period was about 40 weeks. When it was about to give birth, the hind looked for a secure hiding place, preferably in the dense undergrowth of the forest where it could find natural protection for the tiny calf. During the first few days after birth, the mother never went far from her young. The fawn was able to stand on its own legs a few hours after birth. The solicitous care by the hind for her calf during the first days of its life is hinted at in a touching way in Jeremiah 14:4-5, where only a severe drought is said to drive the hind from her calf. Job 39:1-4 describes the calving of the hinds. The hind illustrated grace and charm (Gn 49:21; Prv 5:19), and its dark, gentle eyes and graceful limbs were used to describe the beauty of a woman (Prv 5:18-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dog\">Dog<\/p>\n<p>Probably the earliest domesticated animal <em>(Canis familiaris),<\/em> used very early in hunting. The modern dog is believed to have come from the Indian wolf <em>(Canis lupus pallipes).<\/em> The dogs of biblical times probably looked like a modern German shepherd, with short pointed ears, a pointed nose, and a long tail.<\/p>\n<p>The dog was generally looked down upon in biblical times (Prv 26:11; 2 Pt 2:22). The biblical writers did not share modern sentiments about dogs being man’s best friends. The dog was pictured as a scavenger, haunting streets and dumps (Ex 22:31; 1 Kgs 22:38; Mt 15:26; Lk 16:21). Human corpses could become the spoil of dogs (2 Kgs 9:35-36). In general, dogs served the same function as vultures and other birds of prey. Most of the 41 references in the Scriptures to dogs show strong disfavor. Dogs were considered cowardly, filthy creatures.<\/p>\n<p>Dogs used in hunting occur in paintings in Egyptian tombs, and there is a reference to dogs herding sheep in Job 30:1. One good quality of dogs highly esteemed by the Israelites was watchfulness (Is 56:10). In general, however, in biblical times “dog” was a term of contempt (1 Sm 17:43; 2 Sm 16:9) and was used of overly submissive persons (2 Sm 9:8; 2 Kgs 8:13) and of evil persons (Is 56:10-11; Mt 7:6; Phil 3:2; Rv 22:15).<\/p>\n<p>Dogs, like pigs, were voracious and omnivorous (eating any kind of food). In response to a Gentile woman’s request that he heal her daughter, Jesus used the metaphor of throwing household food scraps to dogs (Mt 15:22-28; Mk 7:25-30). At the time of Jesus, the word “dog” was a standard Jewish term of contempt for Gentiles who, like dogs, were considered unclean, although the diminutive form of the word, used by Jesus, softened this considerably. Seeing her faith, Jesus granted the woman’s request, giving a non-Jew some of “the children’s bread.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Donkey\">Donkey<\/p>\n<p>Beast of burden. The donkey of the Holy Land <em>(Equus asinus)<\/em> was quite different from the European donkey of today, which is usually a small, stubborn animal. In biblical times the donkey was a beautiful, stately, friendly animal. Its color was usually reddish brown. Three wild races have been described, all from Africa. The race from northwest Africa is extinct; the one from northeast Africa, if not extinct, is close to extinction; the Somalian race, which survives, did not play an important part in domestication. The northeast African race, the Nubian donkey, was evidently domesticated in the Nile River region in early historic times. The donkey was used as a mount from the time of domestication on. It is first mentioned in the Bible among the animals that Abraham acquired in Egypt (Gn 12:16). The donkey was primarily a beast of burden, driven but not bridled. From the time of the Middle Kingdom on (c. 2040 <span>BC<\/span>), it was used for riding in Egypt, but only the Jews and Nubians rode donkeys regularly. The donkey was also used for threshing grain and for pulling the plow. In Arab countries today peasants plow with a donkey and a cow or camel hitched together. In Israel the law forbade plowing with a donkey and an ox hitched together (Dt 22:10). Until the time of Solomon (960 <span>BC<\/span>), horses were not used in Palestine. From that time on, the horse was ridden by warriors; the donkey was used by those who were traveling peaceably.<\/p>\n<p>The donkey was held in high regard by the Jews and was considered an economic asset. An individual had to have a donkey for minimum existence (Jb 24:3), and wealth was frequently counted by the number of donkeys one possessed (Gn 12:16; 24:35). The donkey was considered an acceptable gift (Gn 32:13-15). It was allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Dt 5:14). Women in biblical times often used the donkey as a riding animal (Jos 15:18; 1 Sm 25:23; 2 Kgs 4:24); often a special driver would help a woman guide the animal, running along at its side. If a married couple possessed only one donkey, the husband usually walked alongside while the wife rode (Ex 4:20).<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel returning from Babylon had ten times as many donkeys as horses and camels (Ezr 2:66-67; Neh 7:68-69). Job’s wealth was indicated by the fact that he had 500 she-donkeys before catastrophe hit him (Jb 1:3); after his recovery he had 1,000 donkeys (Jb 42:12). Joseph’s brothers used donkeys to transport the grain they purchased in Egypt (Gn 42:26; 43:24). Abigail transported food on donkeys to David and his troops during their conflict with Saul (1 Sm 25:18). David assigned one of the 12 managers of his royal estates to look after his donkeys exclusively (1 Chr 27:30).<\/p>\n<p>The onager, or Syrian wild donkey <em>(Equus hemionus hemihippus)<\/em>, is an intermediate between the true horse and the true donkey. Its ears are longer than those of a horse but shorter than those of a donkey. The front hooves are narrow; there are chestnuts (callouslike spots on the inside of the knees) on the front legs only, and the tail is short haired for a long distance from its root so that it appears to be tufted.<\/p>\n<p>The Sumerians (ancient Mesopotamians) were able to domesticate the onager, which was eventually replaced by the horse. It was used to draw chariots in Ur; a number of onagers were buried with their vehicles in a royal grave that dates from about 2500 <span>BC<\/span>. Later the wild onager was a favorite hunter’s prize for Babylonian and Assyrian kings.<\/p>\n<p>The onager was very common in the steppe lands near Israel, where it was described as a freedom-loving desert animal (Jb 24:5; 39:5-8; Ps 104:11; Is 32:14; Jer 2:24; Hos 8:9). Ishmael was described as “free and untamed as a wild donkey” (Gn 16:12, <span>nlt<\/span>)—that is, one who could not adjust to domestic life. Drought seems to have been responsible for the population decline of the onager in biblical times (Jer 14:6). The modern onager <em>(Equus hemionus onager)<\/em> is slightly larger than the Syrian wild donkey that is extinct.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dragon\">Dragon<\/p>\n<p>Any one of a number of monstrous land and sea creatures. In biblical usage, “dragon” does not refer to the huge, fire-breathing, winged reptile of European folklore. The translators of the <span>kjv<\/span> used the term to translate two Hebrew words that are usually rendered more precisely in modern translations. One word referred to desert animals; most scholars agree with the <span>niv<\/span> that “jackals” is its proper meaning (Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; Jer 9:11; Mal 1:3). <em>See<\/em> Jackal (below).<\/p>\n<p>The other Hebrew word translated “dragon” is harder to define. It was frequently used in reference to serpents (so translated in the <span>rsv<\/span>: Ex 7:9-12; Dt 32:33; Ps 91:13). In other <span>rsv<\/span> passages it is translated “sea monster” (Gn 1:21; Jb 7:12; Ps 148:7). The exact identity of such sea monsters is not known. Several <span>rsv<\/span> passages retain the English “dragon.” In two of them (Ps 74:13; Is 27:1), the context indicates that sea monsters are meant. In three others (Is 51:9; Ez 29:3; 32:2) “dragon” seems to refer to the crocodile, a figurative reference to the Egyptian pharaoh at the time of the exodus. Jeremiah 51:34 (translated “monster” in the <span>rsv<\/span>) may also refer to a voracious creature such as a crocodile. <em>See<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\n<p>Babylonian myths described monsters and dragons in primordial conflict with the god Marduk; they represented the principle of evil. In its figurative usages in Scripture, “dragon” has a similar significance, especially in the prophetic books. In the book of Revelation it is a symbol of Satan, the archenemy of God and his people (Rv 12:3-17; 13:2, 4, 11; 16:13; 20:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Fish\">Fish<\/p>\n<p>Aquatic animals frequently mentioned in the Bible without names or descriptions that enable us to identify the particular species. Since time immemorial, fish have constituted one of the staple foods of humanity, and they still serve as the chief source of protein in many parts of the world. The trade in fish was highly developed in biblical times. For example, one of the gates in Jerusalem was called the Fish Gate (Neh 3:3; Zep 1:10). The law in Leviticus 11:9-12 permitted the Jews to eat fish, but only those having both fins and scales. Scaleless fish such as catfish were forbidden, even though they had fins.<\/p>\n<p>Egyptian paintings depict various methods of fishing, and the Philistines fished in the Mediterranean Sea. Since the people of Israel were not a seafaring nation, it is safe to assume that most of their fish came from freshwater lakes and rivers, especially the Sea of Galilee. Some 36 species of fish have been identified in that lake, including varieties of perch, carp, barbel, “sardine,” and catfish.<\/p>\n<p>The method of fishing characteristic of NT times was the dragnet. After a boat had put out into the deep (Lk 5:4), a large net would be thrown out from it and then dragged toward shore by the rowers in the boat, possibly with the help of a crew in another boat. The catch was sorted out on shore (Mt 13:47-48). Fishing was usually carried out at night when the coolness of the water brought fish closer to the surface and when they could not see the approaching nets.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews also fished by hook and line (Mt 17:27), a few by spear (Jb 41:7), and some by the throw net (Ez 47:10). Habakkuk refers to hook-and-line fishing, netting, and seining (1:15).<\/p>\n<p>Very early in the history of the Christian church the fish became a symbol for Christ and the faith. It was scratched on the walls of Roman catacombs and may be seen today decorating walls, altars, pews, and vestments. The symbol came into use because the Greek word for “fish” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">ichthus<\/span><em>)<\/em> is composed of the first letter of each word in the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” <em>See<\/em> Whale (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Flea\">Flea<\/p>\n<p>Tiny, irritating insect (1 Sm 24:14; 26:20, <span>nlt<\/span>). Many species of fleas occur in Palestine, the most common being <em>Pulex irritans.<\/em> About a thousand species are known around the world. Fleas are wingless parasites that have sharp jaws and suck out blood from the bodies of humans and animals. The body is wedge shaped, enabling the flea to burrow into folds of skin and hide there. The eggs, laid by the female in dust heaps in the corners of rooms, hatch into small, white larvae that pupate (a nonfeeding stage) in a cocoon. Soon adult fleas appear that immediately attach themselves to the body of a host. The female requires blood for the development of her eggs.<\/p>\n<p>A flea bite is painful and causes some swelling and itching. Fleas are attracted by warmth. With favorable moisture and temperature, adult fleas can live a year or longer without food, but they are voracious feeders. The most dangerous fleas are those of the rat that transmit the organism responsible for bubonic plague. There were 41 recorded epidemics of bubonic plague before the Christian era.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Fly\">Fly<\/p>\n<p>Insects of the order Diptera, which have one pair of wings. Many winged insects of other orders, however, are also called flies, such as the dragonfly or butterfly.<\/p>\n<p>As in almost all parts of the world, flies are abundant in Palestine. One of the most numerous is the common housefly <em>(Musca domestica),<\/em> found chiefly around dung heaps and garbage. The female lays her eggs, out of which emerge white maggots that feed on refuse. After a few days the maggot develops into a cocoon out of which emerges the adult housefly. In the summer the whole cycle lasts about 12 days, so that a fly can breed about 20 generations a year.<\/p>\n<p>Another fly common to Palestine is the botfly (family Oestridae). It causes much discomfort among livestock by irritating them and spreading diseases. Tabanid flies (family Tabanidae), including the horsefly (genus <em>Tabanus<\/em>) and related species, are also found in Palestine. Both the botfly and horsefly are known as gadflies because of the persistent distress they inflict. Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of as a gadfly in view of his invasion of Egypt (Jer 46:20).<\/p>\n<p>The fourth plague in Egypt just before the exodus featured “swarms of flies” (Ex 8:21-31, <span>nlt<\/span>; cf. Pss 78:45; 105:31). Those swarms may have been made up of any or all the flies mentioned above. The maggots mentioned in Job 25:6 and Isaiah 14:11 and the worms in Exodus 16:24 and Job 7:5 and 17:14 were probably fly larvae.<\/p>\n<p>A proverb quoted in Ecclesiastes 10:1 probably refers to the housefly, which would be attracted to an open, perfumed ointment bottle. Once inside it would drown and eventually decay, causing the ointment to spoil and stink. The fly is also referred to in Isaiah 7:18 where it symbolizes Egypt. Isaiah may have had in mind a horsefly <em>(Tabanus arenivagus)<\/em> that attacks both humans and animals.<\/p>\n<p>Philistine inhabitants of the city of Ekron worshiped a god named Baal-zebul, meaning “Lord of the high places.” The Hebrews mockingly spoke of Baal-zebub, meaning “Lord of the flies” (2 Kgs 1:2). The NT form is Beelzebub (e.g., Mt 10:25; 12:24, 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Fox\">Fox<\/p>\n<p>Small, doglike carnivore with a bushy tail that is about half its body length. The red fox of the Holy Land <em>(Vulpes palaetinae)<\/em> is similar to the North American red fox; it is smaller than a wolf and is normally a nocturnal solitary animal. The omnivorous fox eats almost any kind of food—fruits, plants, mice, beetles, and birds—but seldom touches carrion. It loves the sweet juice of grapes, but it also burrows underground tunnels that can destroy the vines (Sg 2:15). The fox is intelligent and known for its slyness (Lk 13:32). It has considerable endurance and can run at speeds up to 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour. The Jews rebuilding Jerusalem’s wall were taunted by the wisecrack that even a fox jumping on their wall would knock it over (Neh 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>The Egyptian fox <em>(Vulpes niloticus)<\/em> is found in the central and southern parts of the Holy Land. It is somewhat smaller than the common red fox. Its back is rust colored and its belly light. The Syrian fox <em>(Vulpes flavescens)<\/em> that lives in the northern part of the Holy Land is shiny gold in color.<\/p>\n<p>Some OT references such as Psalm 63:10 and Lamentations 5:18 are translated “fox” in the <span>kjv<\/span> but probably refer to jackals. Jackals, not foxes, hunt in packs and tend to act as scavengers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Frog\">Frog<\/p>\n<p>Amphibian (genus <em>Rana<\/em>), living part of its life in the water and part on land.<\/p>\n<p>Frogs and toads are covered with soft, hairless skin and lack a tail in the adult stage. The hind legs are much longer and more powerfully developed than the forelegs so that the animals are able to jump large distances. It has been suggested that the frog referred to in Scripture is an edible one, <em>Rana ridibunda,<\/em> one of the aquatic frogs found in Egypt and in the stagnant waters of the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The female frog lays her eggs in the water; after about a week the eggs hatch into tadpoles. Gradually through metamorphosis the tail is lost and limbs are acquired. Frogs must maintain a moist skin since they take oxygen through the skin as well as through their lungs; thus they must always remain close to water. They feed on insects and worms.<\/p>\n<p>Frogs are found throughout the Palestinian lowlands, where their croaking is heard in the spring and on summer evenings. The Israelites seem to have associated frogs primarily with sliminess and foulness. They fell into the category of creeping or swarming creatures, which in general were ritually unclean (Lv 11:29-31). Since the frog was not specifically listed, however, rabbis did not consider it one of the animals that defiled human beings through contact.<\/p>\n<p>In Revelation 16:13 certain foul spirits are said to look like frogs. The ancient Egyptians made the frog a symbol of life and birth and an image of Heqet, the patron goddess of birth. She is depicted with a frog’s head giving life to the newborn. Thus that deity was discredited when the power of God afflicted Egypt in the second of the ten plagues on the Egyptians with the very animal that was her symbol (Ex 8:1-14; Pss 78:45; 105:30). The frog in question may have been the spotted frog of Egypt <em>(Rana punctata,<\/em> or <em>Rana ridibunda).<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Gazelle\">Gazelle<\/p>\n<p>Small, dainty, graceful antelope with hollow recurved horns on both sexes. Two varieties exist in the Holy Land, the dorcas gazelle <em>(Gazella dorcas),<\/em> which is pale fawn in color and up to 22 inches (56 centimeters) tall, and the Arabian gazelle <em>(Gazella arabica),<\/em> which is a dark smoky color and up to 25 inches (63.5 centimeters) tall.<\/p>\n<p>Gazelles are still quite common throughout the desert and steppe areas of the Holy Land, especially in the Negev Desert. Herds usually consist of from 5 to 10 animals, but some varieties assemble in large migratory herds in the fall to relocate to lower elevations and new feeding grounds. Gazelles are herbivorous (plant eating). They are very shy and post guards to warn the herd of approaching danger.<\/p>\n<p>In biblical times the gazelle was probably the game animal most hunted by the Jews (Prv 6:5; Is 13:14). Pharaoh Tutankhamen hunted gazelles and ostriches. The gazelle is said to have graced Solomon’s table (1 Kgs 4:23). Gazelles were not easy to catch because of their great speed (2 Sm 2:18; 1 Chr 12:8; Prv 6:5); they surpass the deer in swiftness. They were trapped in various ways—encircled with nets, driven into enclosures with pitfalls, or forced into narrow valleys and shot with arrows. The Bedouin hunt gazelle with falcons and dogs; the falcon annoys the gazelle, striking it on the head and injuring it so that the dogs can overtake it.<\/p>\n<p>The gazelle is referred to in Song of Songs 2:9, 17; 4:5; 7:3; 8:14, where it is an image of feminine beauty.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Gecko\">Gecko<\/p>\n<p>Reptile of the family Gekkonidae, referred to in Leviticus 11:30. In Jewish food law it was a ritually unclean lizard. There are seven species of geckos in the Holy Land (including <em>Hemidactylus turcicus<\/em> and <em>Ptyodactylus hasselquistii,<\/em> all insectivorous—insect eating). The gecko makes a low mourning sound by vibrating its tongue rapidly against the roof of its mouth. In legend the gecko was said to cause leprosy by crawling across a person’s body.<\/p>\n<p>Another name for the gecko is the wall lizard, so named because it can walk upside down on ceilings with the aid of the suction discs on its toes—but it often plops down into the middle of the home. Since it was considered unclean, such an intrusion would have been a disgusting nuisance to Jewish households (Lv 11:31-38).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Gnat\">Gnat<\/p>\n<p>Any very small fly, in common and biblical usage. According to the <span>nlt<\/span>, the third plague in Egypt before the exodus consisted of gnats (Ex 8:16-18; Ps 105:31). The <span>kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word there as “lice,” but the breeding pattern described in Exodus 8—insects rising from the dust—seems to fit gnats better than lice. Since “gnat” is a general term, the small flies of that plague may have included several small species such as mosquitos, harvester gnats, midges, or sand flies.<\/p>\n<p>The sand fly inflicts a far more painful bite than the mosquito. Further, it does not betray itself by a buzzing noise in flight and is so small that it penetrates most mosquito netting.<\/p>\n<p>Gnats were drawn to wine while it was fermenting. The Pharisees in particular would strain their wine to avoid consuming unclean insects (Mt 23:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Goat\">Goat<\/p>\n<p>Cloven-hooved mammals (genus <em>Capra<\/em>) with large eyes and big, floppy ears that constantly twitch. Both males and females have backward arching horns. The Palestinian goat is a ruminant (cud-chewing animal) of lighter build than the sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The goat was probably the earliest ruminant to be domesticated. Its wild ancestor seems to have been the Gezoar goat <em>(Capra aegagrus).<\/em> Wild goats are believed to have been domesticated very early in Palestine. The goat of Bible times was probably the Syrian or Mamber variety <em>(Capra hircus mambrica).<\/em> Domesticated goats may have as many as four kids in a litter, whereas wild goats bear only one or two.<\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian goat was commonly black. Speckled and spotted goats were a rarity, and for that reason Jacob’s request for those goats in Genesis 30:32 appeared very modest. There may also have been red goats (cf. 1 Sm 16:12; 19:13, where goat’s hair was used to imitate David’s hair, which was “ruddy” or auburn).<\/p>\n<p>Almost every part of the goat was used by the Israelites. The whole goat was used for sacrifice. Its flesh served as meat (Lv 7:23; Dt 14:4), and it was the principal source of milk (Prv 27:27). Goats were sheared in the late spring, and the goat hair was used for weaving tent cloth and for various domestic purposes (Ex 36:14; 1 Sm 19:13, 16). The tabernacle at Mt Sinai was made of goat’s hair blankets (Ex 26:7).<\/p>\n<p>Adult male goats were generally not eaten because of their strong flavor and toughness and also because they were necessary to insure the flock’s increase. Young kids, however, were usually the chief meat for a feast and were offered to visitors as a symbol of hospitality. Goat milk is richer than the milk of cows and sheep and evidently had broader uses. A good goat gives three quarts of milk a day, from which a rich butter and buttermilk can be made. The average Hebrew family could have lived almost entirely on a single goat’s production.<\/p>\n<p>Goatskin was tanned as leather, and the whole hide was turned into a skin bottle by sewing shut leg and neck apertures (Gn 21:14; Jos 9:4). Goatskin had many uses, including the construction of Hebrew musical instruments. The nebal, a large harp, was made with goatskin for its base sound. Drums had goatskin coverings.<\/p>\n<p>Goats were herded with sheep in biblical times, but each group remained separate following its own bell-laden leader. Jesus was evidently referring to their common herding in his description of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Because of their wool, sheep are valued more than goats. However, where pasture and water are scarce and thorny shrubs dominate over grass, sheep are difficult to keep and goats become important. They can live under conditions that suit neither cows nor sheep, producing large quantities of milk. The goat does not supply fat as the sheep does, and since its hair is coarse its wool is rather scarce. Goat-hair cloth called cilicium was used to make tents.<\/p>\n<p>Goats have voracious appetites. They also were responsible for much damage done to the land of Palestine, breaking down terraces, destroying forests, and bringing about soil erosion by eating off all cover.<\/p>\n<p>The goat was recognized as a form of wealth, subject to the law of firstlings (Nm 18:17). It had to be eight days old before it could be offered as a sacrifice. A year-old male goat was one of the animals offered at the Passover (28:22), and two goats were offered on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:7-10). The goat was also used for other specific sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>The ibex, a type of wild goat <em>(Capra ibex nubiana),<\/em> still lives in small numbers on the cliffs close to the Dead Sea. That it was known in ancient times is evident from rock carvings. It is distinguished from the true wild goat by having a more compact rump and horns that are slender and curved back. Its slender legs and sharp cloven hooves enable it to cling to narrow rock ledges, to jump between them, and to climb steep cliffs.<\/p>\n<p>Usually the ibex is found in rugged mountain country among rocky crags and meadows just below the snow line (Ps 104:18). In Job 39:1 they are referred to as “mountain goats.” They frequently gather in herds of 5 to 20. They graze and browse, being active in the afternoon and sometimes feeding through the night. The large horn of the ibex was at one period made into the shofar that was blown in the second Jerusalem temple to announce the new year and the jubilee year.<\/p>\n<p>The goat was often used in a figurative and symbolic sense by the writers of the Bible: in Song of Songs 4:1 and 6:5 for the bride’s black hair; in Matthew 25:31-46 for the wicked; and in Ezekiel 34:17 and Daniel 8:5-8 for various human leaders.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Grasshopper\">Grasshopper<\/p>\n<p>Large insects of the Orthoptera order. They have chewing or biting mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the front pair of which is narrow and somewhat thickened and the hind pair membranous and used for flying. When not in use the flight wings are folded beneath the protective front wings like a fan against the body. By rubbing their wings together, male grasshoppers produce sounds that both males and females can detect. Grasshoppers pass through a partial metamorphosis; the egg hatches into a juvenile nymph that looks like an adult except for its smaller size and undeveloped wings. After several months the nymph becomes a winged adult.<\/p>\n<p>The terms “grasshopper” and “locust” are often used interchangeably. Actually the locust is a kind of grasshopper. Also confusing is the fact that other insects such as cicadas are sometimes called locusts. The difference between grasshoppers and locusts depends more on behavior than appearance. Grasshoppers are individual insects that lead solitary lives and do not migrate. The same insects when migrating in a swarm are called migratory grasshoppers or locusts. Elimination of their food supply by drought, flood, or fire may lead to migration. Climatic factors such as a warm dry winter also stimulate migrations.<\/p>\n<p>Grasshoppers and locusts have been a staple food in the Middle East and also among the Indians of the American Southwest. To the Israelites the grasshopper was considered ritually clean and could be eaten (Lv 11:22).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hare\">Hare<\/p>\n<p>Animal of the genus and species <em>Lepus europaeus judaeus, Lepus capensis,<\/em> and <em>Lepus arabicus.<\/em> It is found in open country, often near or on cultivated lands, and in woods, usually deciduous rather than evergreen. It is an herbivorous rodent and is different from the rabbit, which is not found in Palestine. Although it is not a true ruminant according to modern classification (because it does not have a four-chambered stomach), the hare does rechew its food. It has a process of partial regurgitation of material too hard for the cells in the stomach to absorb initially; thus, the hare actually chews food previously swallowed.<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern hares have very long ears and large hind feet; their feet are well furred. They are similar to American jackrabbits, which are true hares. Hares do not dig or occupy burrows the way rabbits do. Hares are mainly nocturnal and spend their inactive hours hiding in vegetation. They eat grasses and herbaceous matter as well as twigs and young bark of woody plants. Hares breed with great rapidity—the young attaining sexual maturity at six months after birth.<\/p>\n<p>The hare was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:6; Dt 14:7), evidently because although it appeared to chew its cud, it did not have cloven hooves. Consumption of hares has also been forbidden among the Arabs, Chinese, and Lapps, but the hare was widely hunted by other people in ancient and modern times. Its great speed, prolific breeding, timidity, and caution have saved it from extermination by its many enemies.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hippopotamus\">Hippopotamus<\/p>\n<p>Large beast of problematic interpretation. Some early interpreters thought it referred to the elephant, others to the wild ox, the mammoth, or any large animal. It was called “behemoth” by the <span>kjv<\/span> translators. Today it is generally agreed that the reference is to the hippopotamus <em>(Hippopotamus amphibius),<\/em> a large, thick-skinned, amphibious mammal, an ungulate (having hooflike toenails) with a large head, a bulky, hairless body, and short legs.<\/p>\n<p>The description in Job 40:15-24 fits closely the modern hippopotamus (see <span>nlt<\/span>), except for the depiction of the tail. At present the hippopotamus is found only in the rivers of Africa, but there is fossil evidence that it has existed in the Holy Land, perhaps in the swamps of northern Galilee and the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n<p>The hippopotamus has highly developed sense organs, placed in such a way that it can see, hear, and smell almost without being seen; its eyes, ears, and nostrils can reach above water while the rest of the animal lies submerged. It has a large mouth, large tusks, and a short, heavy throat. The strong legs are so short that the belly almost reaches the ground when the animal is on the land. The hippopotamus lives on plants and herbs growing in rivers, but if food is scarce there, it forages on land, usually at night. In spite of its heavy body it is surprisingly agile on land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Horse\">Horse<\/p>\n<p>Przewalski’s horse (<em>Equus przewalskii,<\/em> an eastern race that roamed about Mongolia until modern firearms destroyed most of them after World War I) and the tarpan (a western race of southern Russia that became extinct in the Ukraine in 1851). The domesticated horse <em>(Equus caballus)<\/em> seems to have been derived from the tarpan. The original site of domestication is believed to have been Turkestan, a region north of Afghanistan and India, now in Russia. The horse differs from the donkey in that it has shorter ears, a longer mane with a forelock, a long hairy tail, and a soft, sensitive muzzle.<\/p>\n<p>Horses were used in war not only for riding but also for pulling the heavy, springless war chariots. Two kinds of horses were needed for these different purposes, and the Hebrews distinguished between chariot horses and cavalry horses.<\/p>\n\n<p>The Lord warned the early Israelites against unnecessarily amassing military strength in the form of horses and thereby following the oppressive tactics of the powerful Egyptians (Dt 17:14-16), but the demands of war caused both David and Solomon to import horses from Egypt into their kingdoms and to breed them. Solomon greatly increased the number of horses in the Jewish kingdom and maintained large stables at various cities (1 Kgs 10:26) such as the regional defense centers of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer (1 Kgs 9:15-19). Ahab’s horses are mentioned in 1 Kings 18:5, and records of Shalmaneser III state that Ahab furnished 2,000 chariots to a coalition against Assyria.<\/p>\n<p>In early Israel, the horse was opposed as a symbol of pagan luxury and of dependence on physical power for defense (Dt 17:16; 1 Sm 8:11; Ps 20:7; Is 31:1). Horse trading, mentioned as early as Genesis 47:17, was carried on by Solomon between Egypt and the Syro-Hittite principalities (1 Kgs 10:28-29). Most biblical references to horses refer to their use in war, but horses were also used for transportation. Riding seems to have been less popular than the use of chariots. Cavalry units were not introduced until the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> by the Medes. Joseph rode in Pharaoh’s second horse-drawn chariot (Gn 41:43), and Absalom made a display by riding a horse-drawn chariot (2 Sm 15:1). Naaman traveled by horse and chariot (2 Kgs 5:9). Later, horses were so common in Jerusalem that the royal palace had a special horse gate (2 Chr 23:15), and a gate of the city itself was known as the Horse Gate (Neh 3:28; Jer 31:40). Mordecai rode a royal horse of King Xerxes as a sign of honor (Est 6:8-11). Horses are often spoken of figuratively (Ps 32:9; “mare,” Sg 1:9; “stallions,” Jer 5:8; 12:5), especially in the context of judgment (Hb 3:8; Zec 1:8; 6:1-8; Rv 6:2-8; 9:17; 19:11-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Warfare; Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyena\">Hyena<\/p>\n<p>Stocky carnivore <em>(Hyaena hyaena)<\/em> with coarse hair, an erect mane, and long hairs along the neck and back. Hyenas live in holes among rocks and banks. They are mainly nocturnal but are ordinarily neither noisy nor aggressive. Their cry, however, is a disagreeable, unearthly sound. Hyenas usually feed on carrion, crushing bones with their powerful jaws. If the carrion supply is inadequate, they will kill sheep, goats, or other small animals. When threatened, hyenas growl and erect their mane, but they rarely fight. They are massively built with forelegs longer than the hind legs.<\/p>\n<p>Known as scavengers in Africa, hyenas eat domestic refuse in the villages. In Palestine the striped hyena is a common predator, preferring rocky territory and even rock tombs. Since hyenas were notorious for raiding the graves of the dead, all Israelites who could afford it arranged for burial in tombs protected by massive stone doors. Absalom, King David’s son who was killed by Joab in the wild, was buried under a huge pile of stones to protect his corpse from molestation by hyenas (2 Sm 18:17).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Jackal\">Jackal<\/p>\n<p>Carnivore <em>(Canis aureus)<\/em> smaller than the true wolf and with a shorter tail. It is similar to the fox but has a broader head, shorter ears, and longer legs. The fox is solitary; the jackal tends to be gregarious. Its tail can be drooping or erect, compared with the long horizontal tail of the fox. Jackals usually prowl at night, either singly, in pairs, or in packs through open savannah country. They eat small mammals, poultry, fruit, vegetables, and carrion. They spend their days in thickets and clumps of vegetation. Often they obtain scraps from kills by larger carnivores. Jackals can run at speeds of about 33 miles (53 kilometers) per hour.<\/p>\n<p>The jackal can reach a height of about 20 inches (51 centimeters), roughly the size of a German shepherd dog. Its back is pale yellow with dark, almost black, flanks. Its lips are black and its ears white on the inside. The howl of the jackal sounds like the crying of a child or the heartrending wail of the bereaved (Mi 1:8; cf. Jb 30:29). To other jackals the howl is merely an invitation calling the pack together for its nocturnal hunting.<\/p>\n<p>OT references are chiefly to jackals prowling around ruined cities and wilderness areas (Neh 2:13; Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; Jer 9:11; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; Lam 4:3; 5:18; Mal 1:3). Many such references are translated “dragon” in the <span>kjv<\/span>, but “jackal” is more appropriate.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leech\">Leech<\/p>\n<p>Segmented worm (class Hirundinea) up to five inches (12.7 centimeters) long with a flat body equipped with suction pads at each end. The mouth, located at the bottom of the front suction pad, has three teeth that the leech uses to pierce the skin of its host. The leech feeds on blood, and its glands secrete an anticoagulant to prevent the blood from clotting. The ordinary medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis) is abundant in springs and ponds from the Negev Desert to Galilee. It adheres to the bodies of human beings and animals that submerge themselves in water, injects its anticoagulant, and sucks their blood.<\/p>\n<p>The reference in Proverbs 30:15 is uncertain (see <span>nlt<\/span>) but may be to the parasitic and greedy nature of the horse leech (genus <em>Haemopis<\/em>). The small horse leech enters its host’s mouth and nostrils from water while the animal is drinking. A leech weighing one-half ounce (14.2 grams) has been known to gorge itself with two and a half ounces (71 grams) of concentrated blood and then to exist for 15 months with no more to eat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leopard\">Leopard<\/p>\n<p>Called <em>Panthera pardus tulliana,<\/em> it is the most widespread of all the large wildcats. In rocky areas it lives in caves, but in forested regions it lives in thick vegetation. In OT times many lived in the vicinity of Mt Hermon (Sg 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>The leopard is somewhat smaller than the tiger, measuring up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) in length with a tail of about 30 inches (.8 meter). Its body is better proportioned than that of the tiger. The leopard takes its victim by surprise from a silent ambush, often concealing itself near villages or watering places and waiting for its prey, remaining in one spot for long spans of time. The leopard is swift on the ground (Hb 1:8), agile in trees, and very graceful in its movements. Its color is yellowish speckled with black spots (Jer 13:23). Daniel and John saw visions in which leopards were symbols of world powers (Dn 7:6; Rv 13:2).<\/p>\n<p>The leopard is a wary and cunning animal, formidable and ferocious (Jer 5:6; Hos 13:7; cf. Is 11:6). The leopard is dangerous not only to domestic animals but also to humans. With its natural camouflage it can hide on the forest floor, blending into the changing light and shadows. The Israelites were terrified of the leopard because it constantly ravaged their sheep and goats. Several biblical place names suggest that they were known for the leopards in their vicinity: Nimrah, Beth-nimrah, and Nimrim, a district northeast of the Dead Sea. It has survived in the Holy Land into the present century; a few leopards still exist in remote areas near Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leviathan\">Leviathan<\/p>\n<p>Sea monster mentioned several times in the Bible (Pss 74:14; 104:26; Is 27:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). It may refer to any of the larger marine animals such as large jellyfish, whales, or sharks, or to a large reptile like the crocodile. Some scholars think “Leviathan” may refer to animals now extinct, such as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs (marine reptiles similar to dinosaurs). The scriptural term might also refer to certain dinosaurs that spent part of their lives half-submerged in shallow lakes and oceans. Other scholars believe that most of the references are to the crocodile.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lion\">Lion<\/p>\n<p>Large, tawny-colored carnivore <em>(Panthera leo)<\/em> that preys chiefly on hoofed mammals and charges by a series of leaps and bounds. Within historic times the lion ranged in Africa, Europe, and the Holy Land. In ancient times the territories of the African and Persian lions met in the Middle East. The lion of the Holy Land was the Asiatic or Persian lion <em>(Panthera leo persica).<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The males have heavy manes that stop at the shoulders but cover much of the chest. The Persian lion cannot climb and is mainly nocturnal, returning to its lair or a thicket by day (Jer 4:7; 25:38; Na 2:11-12). This lion is about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long with a tasseled tail 30 inches (.8 meter) or so long; its shoulders may reach a height of 35 inches (.9 meter). It is one of the smallest of the lion breeds.<\/p>\n<p>Lions are usually found in pairs, though sometimes in larger numbers. A small group is known as a pride. They generally prefer open country but in Palestine evidently prowled the subtropical vegetation of the Jordan River valley. Lions, which usually hunt at dusk, kill smaller animals by a blow of the paw, larger ones by a bite in the throat. A lion does not remain in the same place for more than a few days. The animal is in its prime at about seven years of age, when it weighs from 400 to 600 pounds (181.6 to 272.4 kilograms).<\/p>\n<p>The lion does not characteristically attack humans, though like other great cats it may become a man-eater (1 Kgs 13:24-28; 20:36; 2 Kgs 17:25-26; Ps 57:4; Dn 6:7-27). Ordinarily, it attacks only out of great hunger or in self-defense. A very young lion that attacks humans can become dangerous if it develops a taste for human flesh. A very old lion, expelled from the pride because it can no longer keep up in the pursuit of antelope or gazelles, may choose humans as a relatively slow-moving prey.<\/p>\n<p>A lion generally roars only on a full stomach—that is, after it has consumed its prey (Ps 22:13; Ez 22:25; Am 3:4). Nevertheless, its roaring arouses fear (Am 3:8; 1 Pt 5:8). The lion is a bold (2 Sm 17:10; Prv 28:1), destructive animal (Ps 7:2; Jer 2:30; Hos 5:14; Mi 5:8), and the enemy of flocks (Am 3:12).<\/p>\n<p>Lions were common in biblical times in all parts of the Holy Land. Hebrew has at least seven words for lion and young lion. The lion is referred to about 130 times in the OT—more than any other wild animal. Lions were evidently much less common in NT times. After gradually declining, they became extinct in Palestine shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 1300. The lion was present in Mesopotamia, however, until the end of the 19th century.<\/p>\n<p>Lions played an important part in the political and religious symbolism of the Near East (1 Kgs 10:19-20). In Assyria and Babylonia the lion was regarded as a royal beast (Dn 7:4). Oriental monarchs maintained artificial lion pits as places of execution (Ez 19:1-9; Dn 6:7-16). Animals for these were captured in camouflaged nets or pits. To the Jews, the lion was the mightiest of beasts (Prv 30:29-31). Thus, it symbolized leadership (Gn 49:9-10; Nm 24:9) and hence eventually became a title for Christ (Rv 5:5). It was also the ensign of Judah’s tribe and was used by King Solomon in the decoration of his house and the temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lizard\">Lizard<\/p>\n<p>Reptiles of the suborder Lacertilia. Their skin is covered with scales. The lizard is a useful creature because it captures harmful insects and worms. Like other reptiles, it lays eggs with shells softer than those of a bird and with no clear division between the yolk and the white. Lizards are “cold-blooded” organisms without a temperature-maintenance mechanism; hence, they become inactive in cold weather.<\/p>\n<p>Lizards can survive in barren parched countryside. In the Near East they are encountered in great numbers in the Arabian Desert, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Judean wilderness. There may be as many as 44 different species of lizards in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The Dabb lizard (genus <em>Uromastyx<\/em>), which attains a length of about 24 inches (61 centimeters), is found in the Negev Desert. It is omnivorous, an unusual trait since most lizards are insectivorous. It has a hard, rough skin, green with brown spots; a short, rounded head; and a powerful tail encircled with a row of strong spines that it uses as a weapon of defense.<\/p>\n<p>Lizards are listed as ceremonially unclean in Jewish law (Lv 11:29-31). The fact that lizards crawl on their bellies made them unclean. Contact with a lizard’s carcass defiled a law-abiding Jew (Lv 11:32-36). The <span>nlt<\/span> translates the “lizards” of Leviticus 11 as “great lizard,” “gecko,” “monitor lizard,” “sand lizard,” and “chameleon.” The monitor lizard is a large lizard that lives in the deserts of southern Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt. It is up to 55 inches (1.4 meters) long with a long snout and sharp teeth. Other translators and commentators render the original Hebrew in a wide variety of ways, including “tortoise,” “ferret,” “lizard,” “snail,” “mole,” and even “water hen.” The fact that most of the original Hebrew words occur only once in Scripture makes it very difficult to be certain about their appropriate translation.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gecko (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Locust\">Locust<\/p>\n<p>An insect of the family <em>Acridiidae.<\/em> It is referred to by at least 12 different names in Scripture. The various Hebrew words may refer to different stages of its development from larva to adult or to the type of damage that it causes. Locusts are characterized by swarming and mass migration. In modern times they have caused extensive and disastrous destruction to vegetation. Grasshoppers do not swarm or migrate en masse, differentiating them from the true locusts.<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions several different species of locusts. Leviticus 11:22 seems to refer to the slant-faced (bald) locust and also to the katydid, or long-horned grasshopper. The reference in Deuteronomy 28:42 may be to the mole cricket. In Joel 1:4 and 2:25 and in Nahum 3:16-17, successive stages of the insect’s development are described. The cutting locust (<span>kjv<\/span> “palmerworm”) of Joel is probably the first instar (stage of development), the swarming locusts (<span>kjv<\/span> “locust”) are middle stages, and the hopping locusts (<span>kjv<\/span> “cankerworm”) later instars but not yet fully matured insects. In the adult stage, called destroying locusts (<span>kjv<\/span> “caterpillar”), the color of the locust is reddish brown, which turns to yellow with a brownish network on the wings.<\/p>\n<p>Only three of the hundreds of varieties of locusts found in Bible lands are capable of multiplying into great swarms, and only the desert locust <em>(Schistocerca gergaria)<\/em> can be considered widespread in all the Bible lands. The desert locust is native to the Sudan (Africa). It is a little over two inches (5 centimeters) long and has a wingspread of some five inches (12.7 centimeters). It shows two phases, a solitary phase and a gregarious phase, with a possible third phase known as transiens. There are differences in the immature and adult forms of the phases in color and physiology.<\/p>\n<p>The quantity and distribution of rains are important factors in the extent of swarming. Moist soil is needed for depositing the eggs and permitting them to develop. Each female deposits from one to six egg pods, containing 28 to 146 eggs each. The larvae emerge in 15 to 43 days.<\/p>\n<p>In the gregarious phase (from the second stage of metamorphosis onward), the locust is driven by a strong wandering instinct. Masses of them form a random procession of overflowing locust bodies that ignore any obstruction. They swarm over everything (Jl 2:4-9). The only regulator of their activities is temperature; they are immobilized by high or low temperatures. Taking to wing they may move 1,200 miles (1,930.8 kilometers) from their native home. They fly in compact formations large enough to blot out the light of the sun. Their movement seems to be controlled by hormones, but the direction is influenced by the wind. The swarms consume almost every plant in their path, sparing only the carob, sycamore, castor tree, and oleander bush.<\/p>\n<p>A locust plague was one of the most severe evils to come upon the ancient world (Dt 28:38). Joel 2:1-11 describes a locust plague in graphic terms, using it as a symbol of God’s destroying judgment. Special days of prayer, fasting, and trumpet blowing were prescribed to remove locust plagues (1 Kgs 8:37-38; 2 Chr 6:28-29; Jl 2:12-17). Locusts symbolized powerful and merciless enemies that completely destroyed the earnings of human toil (Jgs 6:5; Is 33:4; Jer 46:23; 51:27; Na 3:15).<\/p>\n<p>Bedouins eat locusts raw, roasted, or boiled, preserving them by drying and threading. They are also crushed and ground, and the grist used in cooking or eaten with bread, sometimes mixed with honey and dates. Such was the diet of John the Baptist (Mk 1:6). The Greeks ground locusts in stone mortars to make flour of them.<\/p>\n<p>The ancients considered the two large hind legs, or jumping legs, as separate limbs and had a special name for them. Hence locusts were described as having four legs, a reference to the four smaller walking legs. “Going on all fours” thus referred to creeping or walking as opposed to jumping and did not mean that the unclean insects had only four legs in all. Because of its two hind jumping legs, the locust was exempted from the prohibition against unclean insects (Lv 11:20-23).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mole\">Mole<\/p>\n<p>Rodent <em>(Spalax ehrenbergi)<\/em> from six to nine inches (15 to 23 centimeters) long, which burrows in any area where the soil is suitable for digging; it should be called a mole rat. Common in the Holy Land, large numbers are found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:20 refers to the mole, as does Leviticus 11:29-30 (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The mole rat has no tail and is molelike in appearance, but neither true moles nor shrews have ever been found in the Holy Land. The mole rat’s teeth are strong and protruding like those of a squirrel. The neck is short and thick with a plump body shaped like a sausage. The short legs have broad paws with claws adapted for burrowing. The fur is soft, thick, and ashen gray. Its ears and almost sightless eyes, which are no larger than poppyseeds, are hidden in the fur. Folklore taught that touching a mole rat would result in blindness.<\/p>\n<p>In the wet winter season the mole rat builds breeding mounds resembling those of pocket gophers. It builds less complex resting mounds in the summer, although both have rather elaborate tunnel systems. The mole rat feeds on roots, bulbs, tubers, and various other subterranean plant parts, often doing extensive damage to agriculture.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Moth\">Moth<\/p>\n<p>Insect of the genus <em>Tineola<\/em> that lays its eggs on wool or furs, its larvae feeding on those materials. The destructive qualities of moths are referred to in several biblical passages (Jb 13:28; Ps 39:11; Is 50:9; Hos 5:12; Mt 6:19-20; Lk 12:33; Jas 5:2). In Isaiah 51:8 “worm” (<span>nlt<\/span>) refers specifically to the larva of the clothes moth. The moth symbolizes disintegration, decay, and weakening. It is only the larvae that do the damage. The adult is quite harmless and feeds mainly on the nectar of flowers. It is easily crushed (Jb 4:19). The clothes moth reproduces in May or June. It enters human dwellings in the evening. A week after the eggs are laid the larvae appear and immediately begin their work of destruction, eating anything within reach made of animal fibers.<\/p>\n<p>The moth’s destructive activity is done in secret without any sound and without any dramatic appearance, such as a swarm that blots out the sun. In an age when wealth was counted more in possessions than in money, and when among those possessions wool clothing was highly valued, moths could literally cause economic disaster; hence the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>There are hundreds of species of moths other than the clothes moth in the Holy Land; they are harmless to leaves, flowers, fruit, trees, and seeds. As with the clothes moth, the larvae inflict the damage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mouse\">Mouse<\/p>\n<p>Rodent of the family Muridae, especially genus <em>Mus.<\/em> The mouse was regarded as unclean because, being short legged, it was considered one of the creeping creatures (Lv 11:29). Mice known as commensals live in dwellings and tend to have longer tails and to be darker in color than wild mice, which are active chiefly at night. Mice are good climbers and even good swimmers. Wild mice eat many kinds of vegetation, including seeds, fleshy roots, leaves, and stems. At times they store food.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for “mouse” (Lv 11:29; 1 Sm 6:4-5; Is 66:17) is probably a general term for various rats and mice. The root meaning of the Hebrew word “mouse” is “destruction of corn,” a reference to the damage mice do to field crops. At least 23 varieties of mouselike rodents are known in the Holy Land. They cause food spoilage, damage household articles, and transport the host fleas that spread typhus, spotted fever, and bubonic plague. Plague bacteria may have caused the tumors or swellings among the Philistines (1 Sm 6:5). Isaiah 66:17 refers to a pre-exilic Canaanite cultic practice in which mice were eaten; the reference may actually be to the hamster. A number of rodents are eaten by Arabs of the Near East; the gerbil is considered a special delicacy. <em>See<\/em> Mole (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mule\">Mule<\/p>\n<p>Hybrid offspring of a male ass and a female horse <em>(Equus asinus mulus),<\/em> ordinarily sterile. The offspring of a female donkey and a stallion (male horse) is known as a hinny and is of little value because of its inferior size.<\/p>\n<p>Because crossbreeding was forbidden in the law (Lv 19:19), the Israelites procured mules from the Gentiles, perhaps from the Phoenicians, since Tyre (a Phoenician seaport in what is now southern Lebanon) imported horses and mules (Ez 27:14). Mules did not appear in Israel until David’s reign (2 Sm 13:29), possibly because of the rarity of horses among the Hebrews. Mules were used chiefly by members of the royal court and by other nobles. King David rode on a mule, and Solomon rode to his inaugaration on King David’s mule (1 Kgs 1:33). Absalom met his death riding on a mule (2 Sm 18:9). Mules were less common than horses, camels, and asses in the postexilic community (Ezr 2:66). In antiquity Asia Minor was especially noted for breeding fine mules.<\/p>\n<p>Mules have long enjoyed a reputation for obstinacy, but that trait is not mentioned in the Bible. The mule is prized for riding and for carrying heavy burdens, especially in warm mountainous regions. They are sure-footed and thrive best in hot, dry climates. The mule has the frugality, endurance, and steady gait of an ass along with the size, strength, swiftness, and courage of a horse. Mules are almost never sick. They live longer than horses. They can carry a load of up to 300 pounds (136 kilograms) as far as 30 miles (48.3 kilometers) a day.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pig\">Pig<\/p>\n<p>Most properly, newborn swine. “Swine” is technically the better name for the species, but it is rarely used in common speech today. The domestic pigs of the Middle East derived from the wild pig <em>(Sus scrofa).<\/em> The pig is the most prolific and abundant supplier of meat and fat for food. A thick layer of fat just under the skin is especially pronounced in domestic breeds. Pigs cannot be driven, so they are of value only to the settled farmer. The Hebrews were originally a nomadic people; therefore, they had little use for an animal closely associated with settled life. An Egyptian prince of about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>, however, is recorded as owning a herd of 1,500 swine.<\/p>\n<p>The pig is clumsily built, yet lively and able to move with agility and speed. The most conspicuous characteristic of the pig is a truncated, mobile snout terminating in a disc-shaped surface on which the nostrils are located. Most pigs have large tusks in both jaws which grow continuously in life. The tusks of the upper jaw are unique in that they curve upward instead of pointing downward as in most animals. The excrement of a pig has an almost unbearable odor, which clings not only to the pig itself but also to swineherds, who can be identified a long way off.<\/p>\n<p>Pigs were never raised in the Holy Land by Jews. The great herd into which Jesus drove the unclean spirits was encountered in the land of the Gadarenes, a non-Jewish area east of the Jordan. The Gadarene demons took refuge in a herd of pigs feeding on a bluff overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Mt 8:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>Wild pigs were found in the Holy Land as in many countries today. Psalm 80:13 refers to the destructiveness of a wild boar (the male, or hog) attacking growing crops. A party of wild boars can destroy an entire vineyard or a field of crops in a single night. They devour, trample, and ravage everything within reach.<\/p>\n<p>Boar hunts were common in ancient Mesopotamia. Wild boars do not attack unless molested, but they are dangerous when aroused. They travel in bands of from 6 to 50 and are most active in the evening and early morning hours. The body is covered with stiff bristles and usually some finer hair, but the body covering is often quite scanty. Wild pigs are mainly vegetarian, feeding on roots, nuts, grains, and plant stems. Wild boars were particularly abundant in the mountainous regions of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, in the Jordan River valley, and in wooded sections such as Mt Tabor.<\/p>\n<p>Strict Jews would not even mention swine by name but would always substitute the term “the abomination.” Israelites considered themselves polluted if they were even touched by a swine’s bristle. To the Jews, the pig symbolized filth and ugliness. Pigs will eat fecal material, vermin, rodents, carrion, and the like (2 Pt 2:22). Proverbs 11:22 refers to the incongruity of a golden ring in the nose of an animal showing such characteristics. A similar metaphor occurs in Jesus’ statement about casting pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). The prodigal son’s degeneration was shown by his being forced in his poverty to feed pigs and eat their food (Lk 15:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Eating the flesh of pigs was forbidden to the Jews (Lv 11:7; Dt 14:8). The Canaanites in the Holy Land killed and ate pigs freely. In intertestamental times Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), a Syrian king whose territories included Israel, used the pig to “Hellenize” the Jews. He first tested their loyalty to the Jewish faith by requiring the consumption of pork, considered a delicacy by the Greeks (2 Macc 6:18). The act of desecration that drove the Jews to rebellion, however, was the sprinkling of pig blood on the temple altar in a sacrifice to Zeus (1 Macc 1:47).<\/p>\n<p>Pigs were frequently used in pagan worship (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17), which may account for their being forbidden to the Jews as food. Evidence in the Holy Land shows that pigs were sacrificed long before Hellenistic times. Pig bones were found in a grotto below the rock-cut place of sacrifice at Gezer. A similar underground chamber with vessels containing piglet bones at Tirzah dates to the middle Bronze Age (about 2000 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Alabaster fragments of a statuette of a pig ready to be sacrificed have been unearthed. Swine were sacrificed to Aphrodite (Venus) in Greece and Asia Minor. In addition, pigs were sacrificed in connection with oaths and treaties; in the <em>Iliad,<\/em> Agamemnon sacrificed a boar to Zeus and Helios. So it is not surprising that among the Jews the pig became a symbol of filthiness and paganism.<\/p>\n<p>It is possible that eating pork was forbidden primarily because the pig may carry many worm parasites such as trichina, though that is also true of some “clean” animals. Another reason for forbidding their consumption may have been that pigs eat carrion. Some people are allergic to pork in hot weather—another suggested reason behind the Jewish taboo. The same taboo exists among the Muslims and existed in certain social strata in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Porcupine\">Porcupine<\/p>\n<p>Rodent, <em>Hystrix cristata,<\/em> which lives in forested areas, rocky hills, ravines, and valleys. The porcupine is still found in the Holy Land today. It has long quills that can be raised to give the appearance of a crest. It is almost entirely nocturnal. It burrows by day into a natural cavity or crevice. The Old World porcupine rarely climbed trees, although the New World porcupine frequently does. A porcupine may weigh as much as 60 pounds (27.2 kilograms). It eats fruit, bark, roots, and other vegetation, and carrion as well. Although its flesh is edible, the porcupine was not classed among the clean animals for the Israelites. The reference in Isaiah 34:11 (<span>rsv<\/span>) is probably to the porcupine, as is Isaiah 14:23 in the <span>nlt<\/span>. <em>See<\/em> Hedgehog.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Scorpion\">Scorpion<\/p>\n<p>Arthropod of the same group as spiders (arachnids). A dozen species of scorpions (order Scorpionida) are found in the Holy Land, but 90 percent of the scorpions are yellow scorpions, usually three to five inches (7.6 to 12.7 centimeters) long. The rock scorpion, also common to the Holy Land, is as thick as a man’s finger and from five to seven inches (12.7 to 17.8 centimeters) in length. Scorpions are slow, nocturnal invertebrates that rest beneath stones by day and prey on insects and other arachnids by night. At the end of its long tail the scorpion carries a poisonous sting that is fatal to most prey and extremely painful to humans (Rv 9:3, 5, 10; cf. 1 Kgs 12:11, 14). Scorpions symbolize Ezekiel’s evil countrymen (Ez 2:6) and the demonic forces of Satan (Lk 10:19). The scorpion is referred to as frequenting the Sinai Desert (Dt 8:15).<\/p>\n<p>A scorpion has from six to eight eyes. It has eight legs like a spider and two lobsterlike claws with which it catches and holds its prey. It feeds particularly on locusts and beetles. In many species the female scorpion eats the male after mating. Scorpions lay eggs that hatch very shortly after laying. Scorpions prefer warmer climates, and because of their desire for warmth, enter houses, especially at night, hiding in beds, blankets, footwear, and clothing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sheep\">Sheep<\/p>\n<p>Domestic animal, <em>Ovis orientalis,<\/em> referred to directly or by some term such as ewe, lamb, ram, or by some fact concerning them over 700 times in Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Sheep represented the chief wealth and total livelihood of pastoral peoples, providing food to eat, milk to drink, wool for the making of cloth, and hides and bones for other uses. In addition, the sheep was a medium of exchange and a sacrificial animal. The number of sheep raised in ancient times was prodigious. Mesha, king of Moab, paid a tribute annually of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams (2 Kgs 3:4). The Israelites took 250,000 sheep from the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:21).<\/p>\n<p>Sheep shearing was often done for festivals (2 Sm 13:23). The sheep was held down on its side and its legs were tied together; then it lay docilely while its wool was clipped (Is 53:7). Sheep reserved for burnt offerings were not shorn; nothing could be held back from a sacrifice to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Wool had to be processed before it could be used for clothing. First it was washed, sometimes while still on the sheep, then carded and perhaps weighed for the market. The spinning of wool was regarded as a woman’s work (Prv 31:19), but weaving the spun thread into cloth on a loom was primarily a man’s occupation.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible reports that Abel kept sheep (Gn 4:2). The first sheep to be domesticated was probably the argali <em>(Ovis ammon),<\/em> a variety of the urial <em>(Ovis vignei),<\/em> a mountainous species still existing in Turkestan and Mongolia. Five breeds had reached Mesopotamia by 2000 <span>BC<\/span>; all were of the urial stock.<\/p>\n<p>The sheep known in Israel was the broad-tailed sheep <em>(Ovis orientalis vignei<\/em> or <em>laticaudata),<\/em> of which the tail weighs from 10 to 15 pounds (4.5 to 6.8 kilograms) and has always been considered a delicacy. Thus the Lord asked for this choice part as a sacrifice (Ex 29:22-25).<\/p>\n<p>Only the ram of the broad-tailed sheep has horns, but in other varieties of sheep in the Holy Land the ewe also has horns. The horns, two to three inches (5 to 8 centimeters) in diameter, can be potent weapons. Rams’ horns could be used as trumpets (Jos 6:4) or as oil containers (1 Sm 16:1).<\/p>\n<p>Although the sheep is very similar to the goat, it is differentiated by a lower forehead, its angulated spiral horns marked with transverse wrinkles and curved slightly outward, its covering of wool, and its lack of a “goatee.” Most sheep are white (Ps 147:16; Is 1:18; Dn 7:9; Rv 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>The flesh of sheep was a luxury in the biblical culture. King Solomon required a daily provision of 100 sheep for his table (1 Kgs 4:23), but the common people ate lamb or mutton only on festive occasions. A young ram was usually chosen because the ewes were more important to the future prospects of the herd. The meat was boiled in large caldrons. The milk of the sheep is extremely rich; in biblical times it was usually allowed to curdle before drinking. Possibly some Israelites kept lambs in their houses as pets (2 Sm 12:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>To protect the flock at night against predatory attacks, the shepherd tried to provide a fold. In meadows near villages, folds were built and watchmen were hired to relieve the shepherds. The shepherds of the nativity story were out in the field (Lk 2:8); they had no fold but probably had set up a tent for shelter, consisting simply of goat-hair blankets spread across sapling supports. The scarcity of springs in the Holy Land made the watering of the flock a crucial problem for the shepherd (Gn 13:8-11).<\/p>\n<p>Wild mountain sheep, varieties of <em>Ovis orientalis,<\/em> are known in the Mediterranean area (Dt 14:5). The Deuteronomy passage (<span>kjv<\/span> “chamois”) might also refer to <em>Ovis traelaphus,<\/em> a sheep about five feet high (1.5 meters) with long, curved horns. Another possibility is the Barbary sheep that lives in small flocks in rugged mountain areas in Barbary, Egypt, and Mt Sinai. The true chamois is unknown in Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The sheep is also used figuratively in Scripture. The ram represented great strength and fittingly symbolized Medo-Persia in Daniel’s vision (Dn 8:3). It is the nature of sheep to be gentle and submissive (Is 53:7; Jer 11:19), defenseless (Mi 5:8; Mt 10:16), and in constant need of guidance and care (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36). Such qualities are regarded as desirable in the lives of believers in Christ; hence the many figurative references to sheep in the NT and to Jesus as shepherd (Mk 6:34; Jn 10:1-30; Rom 8:35-37; Heb 13:20-21; 1 Pt 2:25). The resurrected Christ told the apostle Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Snail\">Snail<\/p>\n<p>Invertebrate gastropods (mollusks). Land snails are very numerous in the Near East. Some freshwater forms serve as hosts for the schistosome worm, the fluke parasite causing the dread disease bilharzia (schistosomiasis).<\/p>\n<p>Purple dyes of all shades were highly valued in the ancient world. A royal purple dye was obtained from secretions of a sea snail <em>(Murex trunculus<\/em> and <em>Murex brandaris).<\/em> Evidently, that process was developed by Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Assyrians as early as 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The “purple” fishermen had their own guild during the time of the Roman Empire. The snails were harvested during the fall and winter seasons; in the spring, when egg laying took place, little dye was available. The snails tended to remain concealed in the summer. They inhabited the waters off Crete and Phoenicia. Tyrian purple, produced in the Phoenician city of Tyre, the center of the purple-dye industry, was obtained by a double dyeing. Large deposits of murex shells from dyeing operations have been found along the Mediterranean shoreline. The Israelites had to import purple goods (Ez 27:16). Lydia was a “seller of purple” or of cloth so dyed (Acts 16:14). Purple was a sign of distinction, royalty, and wealth (cf. Ex 25:4; 28:5-6, 15; Nm 15:38; 2 Chr 2:7; Est 8:15; Prv 31:22; Sg 3:10; Ez 27:7; Dn 5:7).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 30:34-35 refers to “onycha,” which was an important ingredient of incense. Onycha is the horny, clawlike operculum (the plate that closes off the opening of its shell when a snail is retracted) of a Near Eastern member of the molluskan family Strombidae. The operculum is sometimes used for offense or locomotion as well as for defense. When burned, the operculum gives off a sharp, strong scent, and when mixed with more fragrant but less powerful substances is even more potent. The name “onycha” is derived from a Greek word <em>(onyx)<\/em> for a fingernail or a claw.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dye, Dyeing, Dyer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Snake\">Snake<\/p>\n<p>Various species of snake, suborder Ophidia (Serpentes). In the Bible nine Hebrew words and four Greek ones refer to snakes. The most common Hebrew word is onomatopoeic—that is, it is an imitation of a snake hissing or of the sound it produces as it scrapes its scales along the ground (cf. Jer 46:22). Many types of snakes lay eggs (Is 59:5), although some retain the eggs in the body until ready to hatch.<\/p>\n<p>Snakes are among the most widespread reptiles and are found on all continents except Antarctica; they decrease in numbers and species toward the poles but increase as one approaches the equator. Thirty-three species of snakes are known in Palestine and neighboring countries, 20 of which are poisonous. Two dangerous characteristics of the snake noted by biblical writers are its inconspicuous way of moving and the ease with which it hides itself.<\/p>\n<p>Many snakes are able to swallow animals several times their own diameter because of their unusually flexible jaw mechanism. They lack not only legs but also movable eyelids. Snakes periodically shed their skins. The tongue is actually a hearing apparatus sensitive to airborne vibrations and probably to heat waves.<\/p>\n<p>The venom of poisonous species is a clear, thin secretion, transmitted to the victim’s bloodstream by means of fangs. Two types of venom are known: that of the vipers, which affects respiration and disintegrates red blood cells, and that of the cobras, which paralyzes the nervous system.<\/p>\n<p>The “asp” referred to in the Bible is probably the cobra; the “adder” is the viper. The “cockatrice” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is probably the adder. Serpents were associated with worship in Canaanite religion and symbolized evil deities among many other peoples. Steles (upright stones bearing inscriptions) have been unearthed at several sites in the Holy Land and Syria depicting a god or worshiper with a snake winding about the legs or body. Because the Israelites were burning incense in pagan worship of Moses’ bronze serpent (Nm 21:8-9), King Hezekiah destroyed it in his religious reform (2 Kgs 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Although snakes have been an object of veneration in some religions, in the Judeo-Christian tradition snakes represent evil and, more specifically, the devil. That association began in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:1-15) and is also found in the book of Revelation (12:9; 20:2-3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adder (above); Asp (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Spider\">Spider<\/p>\n<p>Animal of the order Araneida. Between 600 and 700 different species inhabit the Holy Land. Spiders are different from insects in that, like scorpions, they have four pairs of legs instead of three. Spiders are equipped with poison glands—the effectiveness varying from species to species. A few can kill only insects, but others can also kill birds and mice.<\/p>\n<p>Most spiders have a pair of spinnerets attached to silk glands on the underside of the abdomen; from them a web is extruded. In the Bible the spider’s web is referred to as a symbol of frailty and insecurity (Jb 8:14; Is 59:5-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sponge\">Sponge<\/p>\n<p>Simple marine animals, phylum Porifera. The term “sponge” also refers to those animals’ skeletal remains. The sponge has a porous body composed of tubules and cells.<\/p>\n<p>Sponge fishing was well known in the Mediterranean area in ancient times. It was practiced particularly along the Anatolian and Syrian coasts. Sponges were harvested by divers. The use of sponges in absorbing liquids is referred to in the Bible (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Unicorn\">Unicorn<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Wild Ox (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wasp\">Wasp<\/p>\n<p>Insects of the family Vespidae. Hornets are social wasps that build large aerial apartment houses in which 1,000 or more individuals may live. In the Bible the hornet is used as a metaphor for God’s use of military forces (Ex 23:28; Dt 7:20; Jos 24:12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Whale\">Whale<\/p>\n<p>Largest of all living creatures, including those that have become extinct. Whales are air-breathing mammals of the order Cetacea.<\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of whales visit the shores of the Holy Land at times. The finback whale <em>(Balaenoptera physalus)<\/em> weighs about 200 tons (181 metric tons) and lives mainly in the Arctic region but sometimes passes through the Straits of Gibraltar to reach the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It feeds on small marine organisms that it strains through its whale bone; it does not have teeth. The finback whale’s esophagus is narrow.<\/p>\n<p>The sperm whale <em>(Physeter catodon),<\/em> about 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, has a curiously shaped head that looks like a battering ram. The teeth in the lower jaw of the male sperm whale are about seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long. It feeds on big fish, even on sharks. It has a large throat opening.<\/p>\n<p>Whales are referred to in Genesis 1:21 and Job 7:12 (<span>kjv<\/span> only). The “great fish” of Jonah 2:1 need not have been a whale but could have been a large shark, such as the whale shark <em>(Rhineodon),<\/em> which grows 70 feet (21.3 meters) long and lacks the terrible teeth of other sharks. Whatever the actual marine organism, Jonah’s deliverance was miraculous. The Greek word for “whale” is sometimes used as a general term for “sea monster” or huge fish and may be used in that sense in Matthew 12:40.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WildOx\">Wild Ox<\/p>\n<p>Large, fierce, fleet, intractable animal <em>(Bos primigenius).<\/em> It had a long, lean rump with a straight back and a long, narrow head. The animal described in Job 39:9-12 is clearly the wild ox. The two horns (Dt 33:17), its outstanding characteristic, were straight and as long as the head (Nm 23:22; 24:8; Ps 22:21). Kings often symbolized their dominion by wearing a helmet with two wild ox horns (cf. Pss 92:10; 132:17-18). The horns were often used as drinking vessels by the Israelites; some were large enough to hold four gallons (15 liters).<\/p>\n<p>Hunting the wild ox was a favorite sport of Assyrian kings. Tiglath-pileser I hunted it in the Lebanon Mountains about 1100 <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Ps 29:6). At one time the animal referred to in Job 39:9-12 was thought to be the oryx or antelope because of the similarity between the Hebrew word in Job and the Arabian name for oryx. The translators of the <span>kjv<\/span> called the wild ox a “unicorn” because of representations found on Babylonian mosaics and Egyptian drawings. Those representations showed it in strict profile, showing only one horn—hence, “unicorn.” Jerome’s Vulgate, a Latin Bible translation (fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) and Martin Luther’s German version translated it similarly.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wolf\">Wolf<\/p>\n<p>Large doglike mammal <em>(Canis lupus)<\/em> that travels in bands of up to 30 animals. From the nose to the rump, the wolf measures about 3 feet (.9 meter); its drooping tail is about 18 inches (.5 meter) long. It looks much like a skinny German shepherd dog. The grayish yellow pelt is coarse and short haired.<\/p>\n<p>Wolves hunt singly or in relays, usually at night (Jer 5:6). Wolves have acute hearing and sight but rely chiefly on scent and usually catch their prey in a swift, open chase. The wolf has a reputation for boldness, fierceness, and voracity (Gn 49:27; Hb 1:8). It commonly kills more than it can eat or drag away and thus is known for its greediness.<\/p>\n<p>The wolf is a restless animal, always on the move; hunger drives it from one place to another in constant search of new hunting grounds. During spring and fall, wolves usually roam singly or in pairs, whereas in summer they may travel in family groups. In winter, several such groups may join to form a large pack. Wolves are intelligent, social creatures, faithful to their own kind. They mate for life. Individually, the wolf is a rather timid animal; it would much rather avoid human beings. But collectively wolves can be among the most dangerous animals alive.<\/p>\n<p>In Egypt, Rome, and Greece the wolf was considered sacred. Wolves were well known in the Holy Land and are still found there and also in many places in Asia Minor. Shepherds continually battled with wolves that plundered their flocks (Jn 10:12).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to wolves in a literal sense in only three places (Is 11:6; 65:25; Jn 10:12), all other references being figurative. Usually the wolf is a symbol of enemies or the wicked (e.g., Ez 22:27; Zep 3:3; Acts 20:29). Both the wolf’s courage and its cruelty were probably in the mind of the patriarch Jacob when he predicted the fate of Benjamin’s tribe (Gn 49:27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Worm\">Worm<\/p>\n<p>Actually insect larvae in most biblical references, usually maggots, the larvae of flies (see Fly, above). For example, maggots are evidently referred to in accounts of worms feeding on spoiled manna (Ex 16:19-20), corpses (Jb 21:26; Is 14:11), or open wounds (Jb 7:5). Mark 9:48 refers to a maggot that eats dead flesh. In Acts 12:23 a fatal, worm-induced abdominal disease of King Herod is mentioned. In other cases, the reference is to the larvae of other insects (Is 51:8). In Deuteronomy 28:39 and Jonah 4:7 the vine weevil <em>(Cochylis ambiguella)<\/em> is probably referred to; it destroys vines by boring into their stems. Comparing a man to a worm is a metaphor for abasement (Jb 25:6; Ps 22:6).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANIMALS<\/h3>\n<p>In biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals as object lessons.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical approach to classification of animals is somewhat different from the system of classification used by biologists today. The present system of classification, which traces back to Carolus Linnaeus (an 18th-century Swedish botanist), is based on structure, both internal and external. The biblical basis of classification is habitat. Thus Genesis 1 speaks of aquatic organisms (v 20); aerial organisms (v 21); animals that crawl on the ground (v 24); cattle or domesticated animals (animals that live in association with humans) (v 24); and wild animals (v 24). The same system of classification is followed in Leviticus 11 and throughout Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Because of the divergence between systems of classification, the various animals of the Bible will be listed here in alphabetical order—including reptiles, fish, and even invertebrates such as insects, spiders, worms, and sponges. Birds are discussed in a separate article.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Adder<\/p>\n<p>• Ant<\/p>\n<p>• Antelope<\/p>\n<p>• Ape<\/p>\n<p>• Asp<\/p>\n<p>• Ass<\/p>\n<p>• Badger<\/p>\n<p>• Bat<\/p>\n<p>• Bear<\/p>\n<p>• Bee<\/p>\n<p>• Behemoth<\/p>\n<p>• Camel<\/p>\n<p>• Caterpillar<\/p>\n<p>• Cattle<\/p>\n<p>• Chameleon<\/p>\n<p>• Coral<\/p>\n<p>• Cricket<\/p>\n<p>• Crocodile<\/p>\n<p>• Deer<\/p>\n<p>• Dog<\/p>\n<p>• Donkey<\/p>\n<p>• Dragon<\/p>\n<p>• Fish<\/p>\n<p>• Flea<\/p>\n<p>• Fly<\/p>\n<p>• Fox<\/p>\n<p>• Frog<\/p>\n<p>• Gazelle<\/p>\n<p>• Gecko<\/p>\n<p>• Gnat<\/p>\n<p>• Goat<\/p>\n<p>• Grasshopper<\/p>\n<p>• Hare<\/p>\n<p>• Hippopotamus<\/p>\n<p>• Horse<\/p>\n<p>• Hyena<\/p>\n<p>• Jackal<\/p>\n<p>• Leech<\/p>\n<p>• Leopard<\/p>\n<p>• Leviathan<\/p>\n<p>• Lion<\/p>\n<p>• Lizard<\/p>\n<p>• Locust<\/p>\n<p>• Mole<\/p>\n<p>• Moth<\/p>\n<p>• Mouse<\/p>\n<p>• Mule<\/p>\n<p>• Pig<\/p>\n<p>• Porcupine<\/p>\n<p>• Scorpion<\/p>\n<p>• Sheep<\/p>\n<p>• Snail<\/p>\n<p>• Snake<\/p>\n<p>• Spider<\/p>\n<p>• Sponge<\/p>\n<p>• Unicorn<\/p>\n<p>• Wasp<\/p>\n<p>• Whale<\/p>\n<p>• Wild Ox<\/p>\n<p>• Wolf<\/p>\n<p>• Worm<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Adder\">Adder<\/p>\n<p>One of the 20 poisonous snakes found in Israel and surrounding countries, also referred to as cockatrice and viper. True vipers (genus <em>Cerastes, Echis colorata,<\/em> and <em>Vipera palestina<\/em>) also exist there, poisonous snakes with curved fangs that spring into position when the snake strikes. The horned viper <em>(Cerastes hasselquistii)<\/em> may attack horses. It is 12 to 18 inches (30 to 46 centimeters) long and often lies in ambush in the sand with only its eyes and the hornlike protrusions on its head visible.<\/p>\n<p>Both Jesus and John the Baptist referred to the viper several times (Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33). The reference in Acts 28:3 is probably to a small viper <em>(Vipera aspis)<\/em> that strikes rapidly and is very pugnacious. It is found in southern Europe and hisses each time it inhales and exhales. The poison of vipers attacks the respiratory system and disintegrates red blood cells.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ant\">Ant<\/p>\n<p>Mentioned only twice in the Bible, both times in the book of Proverbs. For many years Solomon was charged with a biological error when he referred to the ant as providing her meat in the summer and gathering her food in the harvest (Prv 6:8). Critics of the Bible were quick to point out that, so far as was then known, ants do not store up food. They assumed that Solomon had probably kicked open an ant hill and mistaken the pupal cases (pods in which immature ants grow to maturity) for grain or had observed ants carrying bits of grain, leaves, and other matter to their nests.<\/p>\n<p>At least three species of grain-storing ants are now known—two occur in Israel and the other in Mediterranean countries. The particular species referred to by Solomon (Prv 6:6-8; 30:24-25) is probably the harvester ant <em>(Messor semirufus).<\/em> Its granaries are flat chambers connected by galleries irregularly scattered over an area about six feet (1.8 meters) in diameter and about a foot (.3 meter) deep in the ground. Seeds are collected from the ground or picked from plants. The head, or radicle, which is the softest part of the kernel, is bitten off to prevent germination, and the chaff and empty capsules are discarded on kitchen middens (refuse piles) outside the nest. Individual granaries may be 5 inches (12.7 centimeters) in diameter and a half inch (1.2 centimeters) high. Some nests are known to be 40 feet (12 meters) in diameter and 6 to 7 feet (approx. 2 meters) deep with several entrances.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Antelope\">Antelope<\/p>\n<p>Several antelope-like creatures are referred to in the Scriptures. One seems to be the white oryx <em>(Oryx leucoryx),<\/em> referred to in Deuteronomy 14:5 (<span>kjv<\/span> “wild ox”; <span>rsv<\/span> “antelope”) and Isaiah 51:20 (<span>kjv<\/span> “wild bull”; <span>RSV <\/span>“antelope”). The oryx was probably the antelope, commonly used for food because its long horns made it relatively easy to catch.<\/p>\n<p>Another antelope mentioned in the Bible is the addax <em>(Addax nasomaculatus),<\/em> probably the “pygarg” of Deuteronomy 14:5 (<span>kjv<\/span>). It is a native of North Africa with grayish white hinder parts, a white patch on the forehead, and twisted and ringed horns. The word “pygarg” comes from a Greek word meaning “white rump.” The addax is about the size of a donkey. Its body is closely covered with short hair. It has a short mane on the underside of its neck that makes the head look somewhat like that of a goat. The hooves are broad and flat, and the tail resembles that of a donkey. It is common in Africa and in Arabia, where Arabs hunt it with falcons and dogs.<\/p>\n<p>Antelopes are very graceful and run with their heads held high. Both sexes have long, permanent, hollow horns. With the oryx the horns go straight back; addax horns are twisted and ringed. Antelope are alert, wary, and keen sighted. They are usually found in herds of from two to a dozen. If injured or brought to bay, an antelope attacks with its head lowered so that the sharp horns point forward. Antelopes feed on grasses and shrubs, drinking from streams and water holes. When water is scarce, they eat melons and succulent bulbs. Both addax and oryx were ceremonially clean in Jewish law.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ape\">Ape<\/p>\n<p>Primate not native to Palestine. The two references to apes in the OT (1 Kgs 10:22; 2 Chr 9:21) refer to their importation by King Solomon with other treasures on board the ships of his mercantile fleet. There is some question concerning the origin of those primates. Some believe that the mention of “ivory” in the same verses suggests they came from East Africa and that they were indeed apes, that is, tailless primates. Others, believing they came from India or Ceylon, suggest that they were actually monkeys. There the baboon (genus Papeio), a large monkey, was considered sacred to the god Thoth. Males of that genus were kept in temples, and the more docile females were often kept as house pets. Such baboons frequently had some of their teeth removed or ground down to lessen the danger of their biting. A number of mummified baboons have been found in Egypt, indicating the high regard in which they were held.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Asp\">Asp<\/p>\n<p>Poisonous snake. Most biblical references to the asp (Dt 32:33) seem to be to the Egyptian cobra <em>(Naja haje),<\/em> which conceals itself in holes, walls, and rocks and has the ability to expand its neck by raising its anterior ribs so as to enlarge the front of its breast into the shape of a flat disc. Its potent poison can cause death in 30 minutes. It attains a length of about 80 inches (2 meters). The fangs are permanently erect, not movable as in the vipers (the common poisonous snakes of North America; only the coral snake in America has permanently erect fangs). Cobra poison attacks the nervous system, causing muscular paralysis. The Egyptians looked upon it as a sacred creature; they regarded it as a protector since it fed on the rodents that ate their crops. The “fiery serpents” (Nm 21:6; Dt 8:15, both <span>rsv<\/span>) may have been cobras; “fiery” probably refers to the burning fever caused by their venom. Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6 (“flying serpent”) may refer to the hood of the cobra.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Snake (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ass\">Ass<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Donkey (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Badger\">Badger<\/p>\n<p>Small hoofed mammal. What the <span>kjv<\/span> calls a “coney,” modern translations name “rock badger” (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7; Ps 104:18; Prv 30:26). The rock badger spoken of in the Bible is probably the Syrian rock hyrax <em>(Hyrax syriaca),<\/em> the only species of hyrax found outside Africa. This small ungulate (having hooflike toenails) lives among rocks from the Dead Sea valley to Mt Hermon. It is strictly a herbivorous (plant-eating) animal about the size of a rabbit. It resembles a guinea pig more than a rabbit, having quite inconspicuous ears and a very small tail. It has broad nails with four toes on its forelegs and three on its hind legs, the toes being connected with skin almost like a web. Pads acting as sucking discs under its feet enable it to keep its footing on slippery rocks. With its yellow and brown fur, it is sometimes called the bear rat because of its resemblance to a tailless rat. It is also equipped with black whiskers that may be seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long.<\/p>\n<p>These rock badgers, or hyraxes, live together in colonies of from 6 to 50 animals, often sunning themselves on rocks. They are difficult to catch. Guards are posted, and if approaching danger is sighted, the whole group will scurry for cover, warned by the sharp whistles of the guards. Thus they are commended for taking refuge in the rocks (Ps 104:18) and are called wise for making “their houses in the rocks” (Prv 30:24, 26, <span>kjv<\/span>). The badger is not a ruminant (does not chew its cud), but the motion of its jaws may suggest that it chews its cud. That is probably why it was included with other cud-chewing animals in the Jewish food laws (Lv 11:5; Dt 14:7). It was forbidden to the Jews as food because it did not have cloven hooves. Some Arabs eat and even prize its meat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bat\">Bat<\/p>\n<p>Flying mammals according to modern classification. They have hair and provide milk for their young. The Bible classifies them with other aerial creatures. Bats take shelter in caves, crevices, tree cavities, buildings, and also in exposed places on trees. In colder areas they hibernate or migrate. The normal resting position for a bat is hanging head downward. Bats “swim” through the air rather than fly because they move with their legs as well as with their wings.<\/p>\n<p>The bat’s thumb is free and terminates in a single hook claw used for climbing and hanging. The hind feet have five toes, all pointing the same way. The large chest accommodates the powerful muscles needed for flying. Because they orient themselves by echo location, the sense of hearing is very well developed.<\/p>\n<p>Most bats are insect eaters, seizing insects in flight. Many insectivorous bats also eat some fruit. Other bats feed exclusively, usually in groups, on fruit and green vegetation. Fruit-eating bats generally live in the tropics where fruit is constantly ripening, although some have been found in the Holy Land. These bats tend to be larger than the insectivores, having a wingspread of up to five feet (1.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>A third group includes flower-eating bats that feed on pollen and nectar. These small bats with long pointed heads and long tongues are found only in tropical and semitropical regions. Three species of vampire bats, which do not occur in the Holy Land, eat blood by making a small incision and lapping it up. Carnivorous (meat-eating) bats prey on birds, lizards, and frogs. Fish-eating bats catch fish at or near the water surface.<\/p>\n<p>Eight varieties of bats are known in the Holy Land. One of them, the little brown bat (genus <em>Myotis<\/em>), is worldwide in its distribution. It is insectivorous and probably has the widest distribution of any nonhuman terrestrial mammal. Brown bats are mostly cave dwellers. The females form maternity colonies that may number in the tens of thousands.<\/p>\n<p>Two species of mouse-tailed bats (genus <em>Rhinopoma<\/em>) are found in the Holy Land. Their tails are nearly as long as the head and body combined. They are colonial, roosting in caves, rock clefts, wells, pyramids, palaces, and houses. Like the brown bat, they are insectivorous. The slit-faced or hollow-faced bats (genus <em>Nycteris<\/em>) are also found in the Holy Land. They are insectivorous and roost in groups from 6 to 20.<\/p>\n<p>The bats found in the Holy Land vary in size from that of a mouse to the size of a rat; the largest species measures more than 20 inches (51 centimeters) across the wings. The bat was unclean to the Jews (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bear\">Bear<\/p>\n<p>Large, heavy, big-headed mammal with short, powerful limbs, a short tail, and small eyes and ears. Bears have a “plantigrade” walk: they walk on both the sole and heel as humans do. The Palestinian bear is a Syrian version of the brown bear <em>(Ursus arctos syriacus).<\/em> It can grow to a height of 6 feet (1.8 meters) and may weigh as much as 500 pounds (227 kilograms).<\/p>\n<p>Bears have an excellent sense of smell but less developed senses of sight and hearing. They are omnivorous (eating any kind of food); they subsist largely on vegetation, fruits, insects, and fish.<\/p>\n<p>Bears are usually peaceful and inoffensive, but if they think they must defend themselves (Lam 3:10) or their young (2 Sm 17:8; Prv 17:12; Hos 13:8), they may be formidable and dangerous adversaries. David boasted of his role as a bear killer (1 Sm 17:34-37). Since a blow from a bear’s paw can be fatal, David’s courage and strength as a young shepherd in running after a bear and wrenching one of his father’s sheep from its jaws were noteworthy.<\/p>\n<p>Some biblical passages seem to imply that bears attacked for no apparent reason (e.g., Prv 28:15; Am 5:19). At other times they were God’s instruments of punishment, as in the story of Elisha and the two she-bears (2 Kgs 2:24). The bear and the lion, often mentioned together in the Bible (1 Sm 17:37), were the two largest and strongest beasts of prey in the Holy Land. Thus they symbolized both strength and terror (Am 5:19).<\/p>\n<p>In biblical times bears seem to have roamed all over Palestine. Today they are found only in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon Mountains, and even there they are rare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bee\">Bee<\/p>\n<p>One of two domesticated insects <em>(Apis mellifica),<\/em> the other being the silkworm. Bees gather nectar from flowers, transferring pollen from one flower to another in the process. It is believed that they convey the location of sources of nectar to other bees through a bee “dance,” which may indicate both distance and direction. Bees are sensitive to four colors: blue-green, yellow-green, blue-violet, and ultra-violet (invisible to humans).<\/p>\n<p>The wild bees of the Holy Land are especially noted for their ferocity in attack. Only the female “worker” bees sting people and animals, the virulence of their venom increasing in warm weather. A number of biblical passages allude to the irritable, vindictive nature of bees and to the painful stings they inflict (Dt 1:44; Ps 118:12; Is 7:18).<\/p>\n<p>One reference calls attention to the fact that in semidesert regions a dead animal’s carcass, stripped to the bone by jackals or vultures and dried in the sun, can provide wild bees an excellent place to start a new colony (Jgs 14:5-9).<\/p>\n<p>The Egyptians considered the bee sacred. In ancient Greece candles were made from beeswax. In the Holy Land, beekeeping was probably not practiced until the Hellenistic period (second century <span>BC<\/span>), although Ezekiel 27:17 suggests that it may have been practiced earlier. If domestic honey was not available to the Hebrews, wild honey certainly was, and travelers would be on the lookout for caches of honey in rocky clefts and other likely places. The Philistines and the Hittites practiced beekeeping in their cities.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible contains many references to bees and bee products. A bee swarm was a valuable asset, though the price of honey itself was low. Honey was sometimes eaten with the honeycomb (Sg 5:1). Honey also had uses other than food, e.g., in embalming.<\/p>\n<p>The land of Israel was described as a land flowing with milk and honey. Honey was a major source of sweetening in the ancient Near East—hence, its importance (cf. Jgs 14:8-9). Actually the Hebrew word for “honey” may include not only bee honey but also the sweet syrup extracted from such fruits as figs, dates, and grapes. Thus “a land flowing with milk and honey” (Ex 3:8, <span>rsv<\/span>) does not necessarily stand for a land of bees but for a land rich in sweetness.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Honey.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Behemoth\">Behemoth<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Hippopotamus (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Camel\">Camel<\/p>\n<p>Large beast of burden. Unintelligent, ill-natured, and quarrelsome, the camel <em>(Camelus dromedarius)<\/em> is nevertheless a blessing to people living in the desert and on its borders because it is especially adapted to that habitat. It has been called the ship of the desert. Having thick elastic pads of fibrous tissue on its feet, it can walk on hot desert sands. It can go without water for long periods and can subsist on vegetation growing on the saline soils. The camel’s nostrils are pinched together and can be closed at will to prevent penetration of sand during violent sandstorms.<\/p>\n<p>Camels are used for transporting both goods and people. A person riding a camel can cover from 60 to 75 miles (96.5 to 121 kilometers) in a day. A camel can carry a load weighing 600 pounds (272 kilograms) or more. Camels were used heavily in the spice trade (Gn 37:25) and traveled regularly in camel trains between Arabia, Egypt, and Assyria. They were also ridden in time of war (Jgs 6:5). A camel can even be hitched to a plow in areas where the land is cultivated.<\/p>\n<p>The hair shed by camels during the early spring is preserved and used in weaving cloth and making tents. As much as 10 pounds (4.5 kilograms) of hair can be obtained from one camel. A rough cloak of camel’s hair, as worn by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4), is still worn by Bedouins today. A camel’s hair garment was also the sign of the prophetic office (Zec 13:4).<\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of camel occur within the one-humped species, the slow burden-bearing camel referred to in Genesis 37:25 and the fast dromedary of 1 Samuel 30:17. The dromedary can stand seven feet (2.1 meters) tall and measure as much as nine feet (2.7 meters) from the muzzle to the tip of the tail. With its three-chambered stomach, which can hold from 15 to 30 quarts (14.2 to 28.4 liters) of liquid, it can go for as long as 5 days during the summer or 25 days in winter without drinking. The camel’s hump is a reserve store of fat, making it possible for the animal to subsist on very little food during a desert journey.<\/p>\n<p>Another species of camel, the Bactrian camel <em>(Camelus bactrianus),<\/em> is also resident in the Holy Land. It has two humps. It is heavier, bigger, and has longer hair than the one-humped camel and is slower than the swift dromedary. Isaiah 21:7 may refer to the Bactrian camel; both kinds of camel are referred to in Esther 8:10 (<span>kjv<\/span>). Camels ranked in importance with sheep, cattle, and asses in OT times. A third of the 66 biblical references to the camel lists it with other animals.<\/p>\n<p>Camels are ruminants (cud-chewing mammals) but do not have cloven hooves. Thus, they were included in the list of unclean beasts, forbidden by the Israelites as food (Lv 11:4; Dt 14:7). They are eaten by Arabs, however, who also drink their milk (cf. Gn 32:15).<\/p>\n<p>Abraham had camels in Egypt (Gn 12:16). At first Job had 3,000 camels (Jb 1:3) and after his recovery, 6,000 (Jb 42:12). Although wide use of camels does not seem to have begun until shortly before 1000 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 6:5), Sumerian texts from the Old Babylonian period list camels and indicate that they had been domesticated. Camel bones and figurines have been found at various eastern archaeological sites dating from well before 1200 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Caterpillar\">Caterpillar<\/p>\n<p>Larval stage of insects characterized by complete metamorphosis. Such insects pass through four stages: egg, larva or caterpillar, pupa, and adult. Bees, flies, moths, and butterflies all pass through a larval or caterpillar stage.<\/p>\n<p>The word “caterpillar” occurs three times in the <span>nlt<\/span> (1 Kgs 8:37; 2 Chr 6:28; Ps 78:46). In the book of Joel that same Hebrew word is translated “locust” (1:4; 2:25, <span>nlt<\/span>). The locust and grasshopper to which the Hebrew word refers have an incomplete type of metamorphosis with only three stages: egg, nymph, and adult. The nymph is a miniature adult in which the wings are not fully developed, though their outline may be present. There are several nymph stages known as instars. The reference is to one of the last instars, in which the wing structures are still folded together and enclosed in a sac but are nevertheless clearly recognizable. That form of the insect is about an inch (2.5 centimeters) long.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cattle\">Cattle<\/p>\n<p>Domestic animals of the bovine species <em>(Bos primigenius).<\/em> The OT often emphasized the beauty of cattle. Egypt was rich in cattle, especially in the Nile River delta area (Goshen), where the Hebrews settled under Joseph.<\/p>\n<p>Some scholars believe that milk rather than meat was the foremost consideration in the domestication of cattle and that in early civilizations meat supplies came chiefly from wild game. Cattle also supplied strong hides that supplanted wood in the manufacture of shields. Their dung was a source of fuel when wood was scarce (Ez 4:15). They were used as beasts of burden and for plowing. Development of wheeled transportation was associated more closely with cattle than with any other animal.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical term “cattle” often refers to all domesticated animals or livestock (Gn 1:24; 2:20; 7:23; 47:6, 16-17; Ex 9:3-7; Nm 3:41, 45). Occasionally, the term was used to refer to all large domestic animals (Nm 31:9; 32:26), although sometimes the word as used in the <span>kjv<\/span> refers only to sheep and goats (Gn 30:32, 39, 43; 31:8, 10; Is 7:25; 43:23).<\/p>\n<p>Probably several kinds of cattle were domesticated in the Holy Land. Small, short-legged, black or brown shorthorn cattle were found in the southern part of Judah; that type submitted easily to the yoke and was prominent in agricultural operations. Along the coast a larger variety was found, and the wild districts east of the Jordan River were populated with a breed of huge black cattle.<\/p>\n<p>Cattle breeding was widely practiced by the patriarchs (cf. Gn 32:15; Jb 21:10). Strict laws in Mesopotamia, as well as in Israel, penalized the owner of a bull that gored a man or other cattle (Ex 21:28-36). Bulls were sometimes employed figuratively as pictures of strength or violence (Dt 33:17; Pss 22:12; 68:30; Is 10:13). For breeding purposes one bull is normally adequate for about 30 cows, but many more were kept since bulls were widely used in Israel for sacrifices. They might be used as a general sacrifice (Lv 22:23; Nm 23:1) or for special sacrifices (Jgs 6:25; 1 Sm 1:24). Particular sacrifices were offered at the consecration of priests (Ex 29:1), consecration of an altar (Nm 7), purification of the Levites (Nm 8), sin offerings (Lv 16), day of the new moon (Nm 28:11-14), Passover (Nm 28:19), Feast of Weeks (Nm 28:27), Feast of Trumpets (Nm 29:1-2), Day of Atonement (Nm 29:7-9), and the Feast of Tabernacles (Nm 29:12-38). The Feast of Tabernacles required the largest number of bulls for burnt offerings of all the annual feasts, with a total of 71 being slaughtered during the course of eight days.<\/p>\n<p>Calves were sometimes referred to as “sons of the herd” in the original Hebrew (Gn 18:8; 1 Sm 6:7; 14:32). The calf, a symbol of peacefulness (Is 11:6), was also used figuratively to refer to the weak (Ps 68:30). A calf’s head decorated the back of Solomon’s throne (1 Kgs 10:19). Calves were sometimes fattened in stalls to keep them from running off weight in the field (Am 6:4; Mal 4:2; Lk 15:23) or were kept around the house; the witch of Endor kept a calf in her house that she killed and served to Saul and his men (1 Sm 28:24-25). Calves supplied veal (Gn 18:7), considered a delicacy by the wealthy; Amos referred to stall-fattened calves in a denunciation of luxurious and careless living (Am 6:4). Calves also supplied meat for all Saul’s armies at the great slaughter of the Philistines (1 Sm 14:32). The “fatted calf” served roasted or boiled was gourmet fare, suitable for the finest banquet (Gn 18:7; Mt 22:4; Lk 15:23).<\/p>\n<p>Cattle were subject to the law of firstlings (Ex 13:12). They were a mark of wealth (Gn 13:2) and were considered proper booty of war (Jos 8:2). Aaron, the first high priest, made a golden calf as a rival to the ark of the covenant (Ex 32; Dt 9:16, 21). Even though he represented the calf as an image of the invisible God, it was especially offensive because the calf was a fertility symbol related to Egyptian and Canaanite practices. Two calves were later made by Jeroboam I of Israel (930–909 <span>BC<\/span>) for his shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:28-33). Hosea’s prophetic denunciations of calf worship were directed at those shrines (Hos 8:5-6; 13:2).<\/p>\n<p>An ox is an adult castrated bull. A steer is a young ox. Oxen were used to do work (Nm 7:3; Dt 22:10; 25:4), though for moving heavy objects, cows were typically favored over bulls because of their more docile nature. Oxen were also used as pack animals (1 Chr 12:40, although they did not have the endurance of the ass, camel, or mule. They usually fed on grass (Nm 22:4; Ps 106:20), but they also ate straw (Is 11:7) and salted fodder (Is 30:24) and could be kept in a stable (Lk 13:15). Oxen could not be offered as sacrifices because they had been castrated (Lv 22:24). They could be used for food but were rarely eaten. Possession of an ox and an ass was regarded as the bare minimum for existence in the ancient Palestinian agriculture economy (Jb 24:3; cf. Ex 20:17).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Agriculture; Food and Food Preparation; Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Chameleon\">Chameleon<\/p>\n<p>Lizard characterized by its ability to change color according to its surroundings <em>(Chameleon vulgaris).<\/em> To the Israelites the chameleon was ritually unclean (Lv 11:30). The Hebrew word for chameleon is derived from a word meaning “to pant.” A lizard’s lungs are very large, and in ancient times lizards were believed to live on air. A chameleon’s eyes move independently of each other; so at times one eye may be turned upward and the other downward. Chameleons live in trees and bushes, clinging to branches with their long tails.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Coral\">Coral<\/p>\n<p>Calcareous (lime-containing) skeletons of relatively simple marine organisms <em>(Corallium rubrum).<\/em> Red coral from the Mediterranean and Red Seas is widely used for jewelry and for medicinal purposes. While the animal is alive, the coral is green in color and shrublike in appearance, looking rather like an underwater plant since the coral animals are immobil. When the coral is removed from the water, it becomes hard and red in color.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient times coral was sometimes used as money, along with precious stones, pearls, and gold. Some believe the biblical reference in Lamentations 4:7 (<span>rsv<\/span>) is to pearls rather than to coral, but it is probable that the references in Job 28:18 and Ezekiel 27:16 are to the red coral (see <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cricket\">Cricket<\/p>\n<p>Insect of the order Orthptera related to grasshoppers and locusts. According to Leviticus 11:22, the cricket was edible. The reference may be to one of the growth stages of the locust.<\/p>\n<p>The <span>kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word as “beetle.” Beetles are insects with chewing mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the fore pair being hard and sheathlike and the hind pair being membranous and folded under the fore pair. Some beetles are carnivorous, others are chiefly herbivorous. Some are aquatic, some produce a secretion that blisters the skin, some damage fabrics, some damage crops, and some feed on other insects that are harmful to humans. In ancient Egypt the beetle, or sacred scarab, was a symbol of the sun god Ra. Scarab seals and amulets were extremely popular in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Crocodile\">Crocodile<\/p>\n<p>Largest of all existing reptiles <em>(Crocodilus vulgaris),<\/em> attaining a length of well over 20 feet (6 meters). Crocodiles are characterized by large lizardlike bodies supported by short legs. The head terminates in a flattened snout armed with strong conical teeth, each of which is implanted in a distinct socket. New teeth growing from beneath continually replace those in use. The toes are webbed. The back and tail are protected by quadrangular horny shields of varying sizes arranged in regular rows and in contact with one another at the edges. The eyes are covered with movable lids that can be closed when the animal enters the water.<\/p>\n<p>The crocodile spends most of its time in the water where it feeds mainly on fish but also on aquatic birds and even small animals that come down to the water’s edge to drink. It is surprisingly fast and agile on dry land, even though its legs are so short that its belly and tail drag across the earth leaving a distinct path.<\/p>\n<p>Until the beginning of the 20th century, the crocodile was found in the marshes and small coastal rivers of western Palestine. A first-century Roman writer, Pliny, referred to a place in the Holy Land called Crocodeilopolis (“crocodile city”) to the south of Mt Carmel, and visitors to the Holy Land as late as the 19th century reported seeing crocodiles in that general region.<\/p>\n<p>The description of “Leviathan” in Job 41 seems to be based on the crocodile (thus the translation of the <span>nlt<\/span>). The “dragon” of Ezekiel 29:3, used figuratively of the Egyptian pharaoh, may be a reference to the crocodile.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Deer\">Deer<\/p>\n<p>Large ruminant (cud-chewing) animals. Only the males have antlers (branching horns). Deer antlers grow annually and are solid, in contrast to those of the antelope and the gazelle. Fully developed antlers are devoid of any covering of skin or horn and, for all practical purposes, may be regarded as a mass of dead bone carried for a certain time by the living animal.<\/p>\n<p>The end of the deer’s muzzle is naked in all species. The stomach is divided into a series of compartments, some of which are used to store partly chewed food. The food is later regurgitated, rechewed, and finally swallowed into a section of the stomach where true digestion takes place.<\/p>\n<p>Three species of deer were known in Palestine: the red deer <em>(Cervus elaphus),<\/em> the Persian fallow deer <em>(Dama mesopotamica),<\/em> and the roe deer <em>(Capreolus capreolus).<\/em> All are now extinct there. The last deer were hunted in the Holy Land in 1914. The red deer referred to in the Bible as “hart” (male), “stag” (male), or “hind” (female) stood about four feet (1.2 meters) high at the shoulder. It was gregarious (living in herds or flocks), each group remaining in a definite territory. Red deer grazed and browsed during the morning and late afternoon (Lam 1:6). The sexes remained in separate herds. The red deer was known for its leaping (Is 35:6) and sure-footedness in the mountains (Ps 18:33; Sg 2:8-9, 17; 8:14; Hb 3:19).<\/p>\n<p>The antlers of the Persian fallow deer (1 Kgs 4:23) were large, flattened, and palmated (shaped like an open palm with fingers extended), and its coat was a yellowbrown. It traveled in small groups, feeding mainly on grass in the morning and evening.<\/p>\n<p>The roe deer (Dt 14:5; 1 Kgs 4:23) was a small, graceful animal, dark reddish brown in summer and yellowish gray in winter. Its antlers were about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and had three points. The roe deer preferred sparsely wooded valleys and the lower slopes of mountains, grazing in open grasslands. It usually associated in family groups made up of the doe and her offspring. They were shy, yet very curious. The roe deer barked like a dog when disturbed, and they were excellent swimmers.<\/p>\n<p>There is some question as to whether the roe deer is actually referred to in such passages as 1 Kings 4:23; references may be to the fallow deer, although that animal does not seem to have lived in the southern part of Palestine around the Sinai Desert because of its need for ample amounts of food and water. Fallow deer were found in northern Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The hart (the male red deer) was listed among the clean beasts that Jewish law permitted as food (Dt 12:15, 22; 14:5), but deer were not listed among the animals appropriate for sacrifice. The hind (female red deer) normally gave birth to one calf at a time, though twins were born with some degree of regularity (Jb 39:1; Ps 29:9, <span>kjv<\/span>; Jer 14:5). The gestation period was about 40 weeks. When it was about to give birth, the hind looked for a secure hiding place, preferably in the dense undergrowth of the forest where it could find natural protection for the tiny calf. During the first few days after birth, the mother never went far from her young. The fawn was able to stand on its own legs a few hours after birth. The solicitous care by the hind for her calf during the first days of its life is hinted at in a touching way in Jeremiah 14:4-5, where only a severe drought is said to drive the hind from her calf. Job 39:1-4 describes the calving of the hinds. The hind illustrated grace and charm (Gn 49:21; Prv 5:19), and its dark, gentle eyes and graceful limbs were used to describe the beauty of a woman (Prv 5:18-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dog\">Dog<\/p>\n<p>Probably the earliest domesticated animal <em>(Canis familiaris),<\/em> used very early in hunting. The modern dog is believed to have come from the Indian wolf <em>(Canis lupus pallipes).<\/em> The dogs of biblical times probably looked like a modern German shepherd, with short pointed ears, a pointed nose, and a long tail.<\/p>\n<p>The dog was generally looked down upon in biblical times (Prv 26:11; 2 Pt 2:22). The biblical writers did not share modern sentiments about dogs being man’s best friends. The dog was pictured as a scavenger, haunting streets and dumps (Ex 22:31; 1 Kgs 22:38; Mt 15:26; Lk 16:21). Human corpses could become the spoil of dogs (2 Kgs 9:35-36). In general, dogs served the same function as vultures and other birds of prey. Most of the 41 references in the Scriptures to dogs show strong disfavor. Dogs were considered cowardly, filthy creatures.<\/p>\n<p>Dogs used in hunting occur in paintings in Egyptian tombs, and there is a reference to dogs herding sheep in Job 30:1. One good quality of dogs highly esteemed by the Israelites was watchfulness (Is 56:10). In general, however, in biblical times “dog” was a term of contempt (1 Sm 17:43; 2 Sm 16:9) and was used of overly submissive persons (2 Sm 9:8; 2 Kgs 8:13) and of evil persons (Is 56:10-11; Mt 7:6; Phil 3:2; Rv 22:15).<\/p>\n<p>Dogs, like pigs, were voracious and omnivorous (eating any kind of food). In response to a Gentile woman’s request that he heal her daughter, Jesus used the metaphor of throwing household food scraps to dogs (Mt 15:22-28; Mk 7:25-30). At the time of Jesus, the word “dog” was a standard Jewish term of contempt for Gentiles who, like dogs, were considered unclean, although the diminutive form of the word, used by Jesus, softened this considerably. Seeing her faith, Jesus granted the woman’s request, giving a non-Jew some of “the children’s bread.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Donkey\">Donkey<\/p>\n<p>Beast of burden. The donkey of the Holy Land <em>(Equus asinus)<\/em> was quite different from the European donkey of today, which is usually a small, stubborn animal. In biblical times the donkey was a beautiful, stately, friendly animal. Its color was usually reddish brown. Three wild races have been described, all from Africa. The race from northwest Africa is extinct; the one from northeast Africa, if not extinct, is close to extinction; the Somalian race, which survives, did not play an important part in domestication. The northeast African race, the Nubian donkey, was evidently domesticated in the Nile River region in early historic times. The donkey was used as a mount from the time of domestication on. It is first mentioned in the Bible among the animals that Abraham acquired in Egypt (Gn 12:16). The donkey was primarily a beast of burden, driven but not bridled. From the time of the Middle Kingdom on (c. 2040 <span>BC<\/span>), it was used for riding in Egypt, but only the Jews and Nubians rode donkeys regularly. The donkey was also used for threshing grain and for pulling the plow. In Arab countries today peasants plow with a donkey and a cow or camel hitched together. In Israel the law forbade plowing with a donkey and an ox hitched together (Dt 22:10). Until the time of Solomon (960 <span>BC<\/span>), horses were not used in Palestine. From that time on, the horse was ridden by warriors; the donkey was used by those who were traveling peaceably.<\/p>\n<p>The donkey was held in high regard by the Jews and was considered an economic asset. An individual had to have a donkey for minimum existence (Jb 24:3), and wealth was frequently counted by the number of donkeys one possessed (Gn 12:16; 24:35). The donkey was considered an acceptable gift (Gn 32:13-15). It was allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Dt 5:14). Women in biblical times often used the donkey as a riding animal (Jos 15:18; 1 Sm 25:23; 2 Kgs 4:24); often a special driver would help a woman guide the animal, running along at its side. If a married couple possessed only one donkey, the husband usually walked alongside while the wife rode (Ex 4:20).<\/p>\n<p>The people of Israel returning from Babylon had ten times as many donkeys as horses and camels (Ezr 2:66-67; Neh 7:68-69). Job’s wealth was indicated by the fact that he had 500 she-donkeys before catastrophe hit him (Jb 1:3); after his recovery he had 1,000 donkeys (Jb 42:12). Joseph’s brothers used donkeys to transport the grain they purchased in Egypt (Gn 42:26; 43:24). Abigail transported food on donkeys to David and his troops during their conflict with Saul (1 Sm 25:18). David assigned one of the 12 managers of his royal estates to look after his donkeys exclusively (1 Chr 27:30).<\/p>\n<p>The onager, or Syrian wild donkey <em>(Equus hemionus hemihippus)<\/em>, is an intermediate between the true horse and the true donkey. Its ears are longer than those of a horse but shorter than those of a donkey. The front hooves are narrow; there are chestnuts (callouslike spots on the inside of the knees) on the front legs only, and the tail is short haired for a long distance from its root so that it appears to be tufted.<\/p>\n<p>The Sumerians (ancient Mesopotamians) were able to domesticate the onager, which was eventually replaced by the horse. It was used to draw chariots in Ur; a number of onagers were buried with their vehicles in a royal grave that dates from about 2500 <span>BC<\/span>. Later the wild onager was a favorite hunter’s prize for Babylonian and Assyrian kings.<\/p>\n<p>The onager was very common in the steppe lands near Israel, where it was described as a freedom-loving desert animal (Jb 24:5; 39:5-8; Ps 104:11; Is 32:14; Jer 2:24; Hos 8:9). Ishmael was described as “free and untamed as a wild donkey” (Gn 16:12, <span>nlt<\/span>)—that is, one who could not adjust to domestic life. Drought seems to have been responsible for the population decline of the onager in biblical times (Jer 14:6). The modern onager <em>(Equus hemionus onager)<\/em> is slightly larger than the Syrian wild donkey that is extinct.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dragon\">Dragon<\/p>\n<p>Any one of a number of monstrous land and sea creatures. In biblical usage, “dragon” does not refer to the huge, fire-breathing, winged reptile of European folklore. The translators of the <span>kjv<\/span> used the term to translate two Hebrew words that are usually rendered more precisely in modern translations. One word referred to desert animals; most scholars agree with the <span>niv<\/span> that “jackals” is its proper meaning (Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; Jer 9:11; Mal 1:3). <em>See<\/em> Jackal (below).<\/p>\n<p>The other Hebrew word translated “dragon” is harder to define. It was frequently used in reference to serpents (so translated in the <span>rsv<\/span>: Ex 7:9-12; Dt 32:33; Ps 91:13). In other <span>rsv<\/span> passages it is translated “sea monster” (Gn 1:21; Jb 7:12; Ps 148:7). The exact identity of such sea monsters is not known. Several <span>rsv<\/span> passages retain the English “dragon.” In two of them (Ps 74:13; Is 27:1), the context indicates that sea monsters are meant. In three others (Is 51:9; Ez 29:3; 32:2) “dragon” seems to refer to the crocodile, a figurative reference to the Egyptian pharaoh at the time of the exodus. Jeremiah 51:34 (translated “monster” in the <span>rsv<\/span>) may also refer to a voracious creature such as a crocodile. <em>See<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\n<p>Babylonian myths described monsters and dragons in primordial conflict with the god Marduk; they represented the principle of evil. In its figurative usages in Scripture, “dragon” has a similar significance, especially in the prophetic books. In the book of Revelation it is a symbol of Satan, the archenemy of God and his people (Rv 12:3-17; 13:2, 4, 11; 16:13; 20:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Fish\">Fish<\/p>\n<p>Aquatic animals frequently mentioned in the Bible without names or descriptions that enable us to identify the particular species. Since time immemorial, fish have constituted one of the staple foods of humanity, and they still serve as the chief source of protein in many parts of the world. The trade in fish was highly developed in biblical times. For example, one of the gates in Jerusalem was called the Fish Gate (Neh 3:3; Zep 1:10). The law in Leviticus 11:9-12 permitted the Jews to eat fish, but only those having both fins and scales. Scaleless fish such as catfish were forbidden, even though they had fins.<\/p>\n<p>Egyptian paintings depict various methods of fishing, and the Philistines fished in the Mediterranean Sea. Since the people of Israel were not a seafaring nation, it is safe to assume that most of their fish came from freshwater lakes and rivers, especially the Sea of Galilee. Some 36 species of fish have been identified in that lake, including varieties of perch, carp, barbel, “sardine,” and catfish.<\/p>\n<p>The method of fishing characteristic of NT times was the dragnet. After a boat had put out into the deep (Lk 5:4), a large net would be thrown out from it and then dragged toward shore by the rowers in the boat, possibly with the help of a crew in another boat. The catch was sorted out on shore (Mt 13:47-48). Fishing was usually carried out at night when the coolness of the water brought fish closer to the surface and when they could not see the approaching nets.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews also fished by hook and line (Mt 17:27), a few by spear (Jb 41:7), and some by the throw net (Ez 47:10). Habakkuk refers to hook-and-line fishing, netting, and seining (1:15).<\/p>\n<p>Very early in the history of the Christian church the fish became a symbol for Christ and the faith. It was scratched on the walls of Roman catacombs and may be seen today decorating walls, altars, pews, and vestments. The symbol came into use because the Greek word for “fish” <em>(<\/em><span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">ichthus<\/span><em>)<\/em> is composed of the first letter of each word in the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” <em>See<\/em> Whale (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Flea\">Flea<\/p>\n<p>Tiny, irritating insect (1 Sm 24:14; 26:20, <span>nlt<\/span>). Many species of fleas occur in Palestine, the most common being <em>Pulex irritans.<\/em> About a thousand species are known around the world. Fleas are wingless parasites that have sharp jaws and suck out blood from the bodies of humans and animals. The body is wedge shaped, enabling the flea to burrow into folds of skin and hide there. The eggs, laid by the female in dust heaps in the corners of rooms, hatch into small, white larvae that pupate (a nonfeeding stage) in a cocoon. Soon adult fleas appear that immediately attach themselves to the body of a host. The female requires blood for the development of her eggs.<\/p>\n<p>A flea bite is painful and causes some swelling and itching. Fleas are attracted by warmth. With favorable moisture and temperature, adult fleas can live a year or longer without food, but they are voracious feeders. The most dangerous fleas are those of the rat that transmit the organism responsible for bubonic plague. There were 41 recorded epidemics of bubonic plague before the Christian era.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Fly\">Fly<\/p>\n<p>Insects of the order Diptera, which have one pair of wings. Many winged insects of other orders, however, are also called flies, such as the dragonfly or butterfly.<\/p>\n<p>As in almost all parts of the world, flies are abundant in Palestine. One of the most numerous is the common housefly <em>(Musca domestica),<\/em> found chiefly around dung heaps and garbage. The female lays her eggs, out of which emerge white maggots that feed on refuse. After a few days the maggot develops into a cocoon out of which emerges the adult housefly. In the summer the whole cycle lasts about 12 days, so that a fly can breed about 20 generations a year.<\/p>\n<p>Another fly common to Palestine is the botfly (family Oestridae). It causes much discomfort among livestock by irritating them and spreading diseases. Tabanid flies (family Tabanidae), including the horsefly (genus <em>Tabanus<\/em>) and related species, are also found in Palestine. Both the botfly and horsefly are known as gadflies because of the persistent distress they inflict. Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of as a gadfly in view of his invasion of Egypt (Jer 46:20).<\/p>\n<p>The fourth plague in Egypt just before the exodus featured “swarms of flies” (Ex 8:21-31, <span>nlt<\/span>; cf. Pss 78:45; 105:31). Those swarms may have been made up of any or all the flies mentioned above. The maggots mentioned in Job 25:6 and Isaiah 14:11 and the worms in Exodus 16:24 and Job 7:5 and 17:14 were probably fly larvae.<\/p>\n<p>A proverb quoted in Ecclesiastes 10:1 probably refers to the housefly, which would be attracted to an open, perfumed ointment bottle. Once inside it would drown and eventually decay, causing the ointment to spoil and stink. The fly is also referred to in Isaiah 7:18 where it symbolizes Egypt. Isaiah may have had in mind a horsefly <em>(Tabanus arenivagus)<\/em> that attacks both humans and animals.<\/p>\n<p>Philistine inhabitants of the city of Ekron worshiped a god named Baal-zebul, meaning “Lord of the high places.” The Hebrews mockingly spoke of Baal-zebub, meaning “Lord of the flies” (2 Kgs 1:2). The NT form is Beelzebub (e.g., Mt 10:25; 12:24, 27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Fox\">Fox<\/p>\n<p>Small, doglike carnivore with a bushy tail that is about half its body length. The red fox of the Holy Land <em>(Vulpes palaetinae)<\/em> is similar to the North American red fox; it is smaller than a wolf and is normally a nocturnal solitary animal. The omnivorous fox eats almost any kind of food—fruits, plants, mice, beetles, and birds—but seldom touches carrion. It loves the sweet juice of grapes, but it also burrows underground tunnels that can destroy the vines (Sg 2:15). The fox is intelligent and known for its slyness (Lk 13:32). It has considerable endurance and can run at speeds up to 30 miles (48 kilometers) per hour. The Jews rebuilding Jerusalem’s wall were taunted by the wisecrack that even a fox jumping on their wall would knock it over (Neh 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>The Egyptian fox <em>(Vulpes niloticus)<\/em> is found in the central and southern parts of the Holy Land. It is somewhat smaller than the common red fox. Its back is rust colored and its belly light. The Syrian fox <em>(Vulpes flavescens)<\/em> that lives in the northern part of the Holy Land is shiny gold in color.<\/p>\n<p>Some OT references such as Psalm 63:10 and Lamentations 5:18 are translated “fox” in the <span>kjv<\/span> but probably refer to jackals. Jackals, not foxes, hunt in packs and tend to act as scavengers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Frog\">Frog<\/p>\n<p>Amphibian (genus <em>Rana<\/em>), living part of its life in the water and part on land.<\/p>\n<p>Frogs and toads are covered with soft, hairless skin and lack a tail in the adult stage. The hind legs are much longer and more powerfully developed than the forelegs so that the animals are able to jump large distances. It has been suggested that the frog referred to in Scripture is an edible one, <em>Rana ridibunda,<\/em> one of the aquatic frogs found in Egypt and in the stagnant waters of the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The female frog lays her eggs in the water; after about a week the eggs hatch into tadpoles. Gradually through metamorphosis the tail is lost and limbs are acquired. Frogs must maintain a moist skin since they take oxygen through the skin as well as through their lungs; thus they must always remain close to water. They feed on insects and worms.<\/p>\n<p>Frogs are found throughout the Palestinian lowlands, where their croaking is heard in the spring and on summer evenings. The Israelites seem to have associated frogs primarily with sliminess and foulness. They fell into the category of creeping or swarming creatures, which in general were ritually unclean (Lv 11:29-31). Since the frog was not specifically listed, however, rabbis did not consider it one of the animals that defiled human beings through contact.<\/p>\n<p>In Revelation 16:13 certain foul spirits are said to look like frogs. The ancient Egyptians made the frog a symbol of life and birth and an image of Heqet, the patron goddess of birth. She is depicted with a frog’s head giving life to the newborn. Thus that deity was discredited when the power of God afflicted Egypt in the second of the ten plagues on the Egyptians with the very animal that was her symbol (Ex 8:1-14; Pss 78:45; 105:30). The frog in question may have been the spotted frog of Egypt <em>(Rana punctata,<\/em> or <em>Rana ridibunda).<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Gazelle\">Gazelle<\/p>\n<p>Small, dainty, graceful antelope with hollow recurved horns on both sexes. Two varieties exist in the Holy Land, the dorcas gazelle <em>(Gazella dorcas),<\/em> which is pale fawn in color and up to 22 inches (56 centimeters) tall, and the Arabian gazelle <em>(Gazella arabica),<\/em> which is a dark smoky color and up to 25 inches (63.5 centimeters) tall.<\/p>\n<p>Gazelles are still quite common throughout the desert and steppe areas of the Holy Land, especially in the Negev Desert. Herds usually consist of from 5 to 10 animals, but some varieties assemble in large migratory herds in the fall to relocate to lower elevations and new feeding grounds. Gazelles are herbivorous (plant eating). They are very shy and post guards to warn the herd of approaching danger.<\/p>\n<p>In biblical times the gazelle was probably the game animal most hunted by the Jews (Prv 6:5; Is 13:14). Pharaoh Tutankhamen hunted gazelles and ostriches. The gazelle is said to have graced Solomon’s table (1 Kgs 4:23). Gazelles were not easy to catch because of their great speed (2 Sm 2:18; 1 Chr 12:8; Prv 6:5); they surpass the deer in swiftness. They were trapped in various ways—encircled with nets, driven into enclosures with pitfalls, or forced into narrow valleys and shot with arrows. The Bedouin hunt gazelle with falcons and dogs; the falcon annoys the gazelle, striking it on the head and injuring it so that the dogs can overtake it.<\/p>\n<p>The gazelle is referred to in Song of Songs 2:9, 17; 4:5; 7:3; 8:14, where it is an image of feminine beauty.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Gecko\">Gecko<\/p>\n<p>Reptile of the family Gekkonidae, referred to in Leviticus 11:30. In Jewish food law it was a ritually unclean lizard. There are seven species of geckos in the Holy Land (including <em>Hemidactylus turcicus<\/em> and <em>Ptyodactylus hasselquistii,<\/em> all insectivorous—insect eating). The gecko makes a low mourning sound by vibrating its tongue rapidly against the roof of its mouth. In legend the gecko was said to cause leprosy by crawling across a person’s body.<\/p>\n<p>Another name for the gecko is the wall lizard, so named because it can walk upside down on ceilings with the aid of the suction discs on its toes—but it often plops down into the middle of the home. Since it was considered unclean, such an intrusion would have been a disgusting nuisance to Jewish households (Lv 11:31-38).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lizard (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Gnat\">Gnat<\/p>\n<p>Any very small fly, in common and biblical usage. According to the <span>nlt<\/span>, the third plague in Egypt before the exodus consisted of gnats (Ex 8:16-18; Ps 105:31). The <span>kjv<\/span> translates the Hebrew word there as “lice,” but the breeding pattern described in Exodus 8—insects rising from the dust—seems to fit gnats better than lice. Since “gnat” is a general term, the small flies of that plague may have included several small species such as mosquitos, harvester gnats, midges, or sand flies.<\/p>\n<p>The sand fly inflicts a far more painful bite than the mosquito. Further, it does not betray itself by a buzzing noise in flight and is so small that it penetrates most mosquito netting.<\/p>\n<p>Gnats were drawn to wine while it was fermenting. The Pharisees in particular would strain their wine to avoid consuming unclean insects (Mt 23:24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Goat\">Goat<\/p>\n<p>Cloven-hooved mammals (genus <em>Capra<\/em>) with large eyes and big, floppy ears that constantly twitch. Both males and females have backward arching horns. The Palestinian goat is a ruminant (cud-chewing animal) of lighter build than the sheep.<\/p>\n<p>The goat was probably the earliest ruminant to be domesticated. Its wild ancestor seems to have been the Gezoar goat <em>(Capra aegagrus).<\/em> Wild goats are believed to have been domesticated very early in Palestine. The goat of Bible times was probably the Syrian or Mamber variety <em>(Capra hircus mambrica).<\/em> Domesticated goats may have as many as four kids in a litter, whereas wild goats bear only one or two.<\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian goat was commonly black. Speckled and spotted goats were a rarity, and for that reason Jacob’s request for those goats in Genesis 30:32 appeared very modest. There may also have been red goats (cf. 1 Sm 16:12; 19:13, where goat’s hair was used to imitate David’s hair, which was “ruddy” or auburn).<\/p>\n<p>Almost every part of the goat was used by the Israelites. The whole goat was used for sacrifice. Its flesh served as meat (Lv 7:23; Dt 14:4), and it was the principal source of milk (Prv 27:27). Goats were sheared in the late spring, and the goat hair was used for weaving tent cloth and for various domestic purposes (Ex 36:14; 1 Sm 19:13, 16). The tabernacle at Mt Sinai was made of goat’s hair blankets (Ex 26:7).<\/p>\n<p>Adult male goats were generally not eaten because of their strong flavor and toughness and also because they were necessary to insure the flock’s increase. Young kids, however, were usually the chief meat for a feast and were offered to visitors as a symbol of hospitality. Goat milk is richer than the milk of cows and sheep and evidently had broader uses. A good goat gives three quarts of milk a day, from which a rich butter and buttermilk can be made. The average Hebrew family could have lived almost entirely on a single goat’s production.<\/p>\n<p>Goatskin was tanned as leather, and the whole hide was turned into a skin bottle by sewing shut leg and neck apertures (Gn 21:14; Jos 9:4). Goatskin had many uses, including the construction of Hebrew musical instruments. The nebal, a large harp, was made with goatskin for its base sound. Drums had goatskin coverings.<\/p>\n<p>Goats were herded with sheep in biblical times, but each group remained separate following its own bell-laden leader. Jesus was evidently referring to their common herding in his description of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46).<\/p>\n<p>Because of their wool, sheep are valued more than goats. However, where pasture and water are scarce and thorny shrubs dominate over grass, sheep are difficult to keep and goats become important. They can live under conditions that suit neither cows nor sheep, producing large quantities of milk. The goat does not supply fat as the sheep does, and since its hair is coarse its wool is rather scarce. Goat-hair cloth called cilicium was used to make tents.<\/p>\n<p>Goats have voracious appetites. They also were responsible for much damage done to the land of Palestine, breaking down terraces, destroying forests, and bringing about soil erosion by eating off all cover.<\/p>\n<p>The goat was recognized as a form of wealth, subject to the law of firstlings (Nm 18:17). It had to be eight days old before it could be offered as a sacrifice. A year-old male goat was one of the animals offered at the Passover (28:22), and two goats were offered on the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:7-10). The goat was also used for other specific sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>The ibex, a type of wild goat <em>(Capra ibex nubiana),<\/em> still lives in small numbers on the cliffs close to the Dead Sea. That it was known in ancient times is evident from rock carvings. It is distinguished from the true wild goat by having a more compact rump and horns that are slender and curved back. Its slender legs and sharp cloven hooves enable it to cling to narrow rock ledges, to jump between them, and to climb steep cliffs.<\/p>\n<p>Usually the ibex is found in rugged mountain country among rocky crags and meadows just below the snow line (Ps 104:18). In Job 39:1 they are referred to as “mountain goats.” They frequently gather in herds of 5 to 20. They graze and browse, being active in the afternoon and sometimes feeding through the night. The large horn of the ibex was at one period made into the shofar that was blown in the second Jerusalem temple to announce the new year and the jubilee year.<\/p>\n<p>The goat was often used in a figurative and symbolic sense by the writers of the Bible: in Song of Songs 4:1 and 6:5 for the bride’s black hair; in Matthew 25:31-46 for the wicked; and in Ezekiel 34:17 and Daniel 8:5-8 for various human leaders.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Grasshopper\">Grasshopper<\/p>\n<p>Large insects of the Orthoptera order. They have chewing or biting mouth parts and two pairs of wings, the front pair of which is narrow and somewhat thickened and the hind pair membranous and used for flying. When not in use the flight wings are folded beneath the protective front wings like a fan against the body. By rubbing their wings together, male grasshoppers produce sounds that both males and females can detect. Grasshoppers pass through a partial metamorphosis; the egg hatches into a juvenile nymph that looks like an adult except for its smaller size and undeveloped wings. After several months the nymph becomes a winged adult.<\/p>\n<p>The terms “grasshopper” and “locust” are often used interchangeably. Actually the locust is a kind of grasshopper. Also confusing is the fact that other insects such as cicadas are sometimes called locusts. The difference between grasshoppers and locusts depends more on behavior than appearance. Grasshoppers are individual insects that lead solitary lives and do not migrate. The same insects when migrating in a swarm are called migratory grasshoppers or locusts. Elimination of their food supply by drought, flood, or fire may lead to migration. Climatic factors such as a warm dry winter also stimulate migrations.<\/p>\n<p>Grasshoppers and locusts have been a staple food in the Middle East and also among the Indians of the American Southwest. To the Israelites the grasshopper was considered ritually clean and could be eaten (Lv 11:22).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Locust (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hare\">Hare<\/p>\n<p>Animal of the genus and species <em>Lepus europaeus judaeus, Lepus capensis,<\/em> and <em>Lepus arabicus.<\/em> It is found in open country, often near or on cultivated lands, and in woods, usually deciduous rather than evergreen. It is an herbivorous rodent and is different from the rabbit, which is not found in Palestine. Although it is not a true ruminant according to modern classification (because it does not have a four-chambered stomach), the hare does rechew its food. It has a process of partial regurgitation of material too hard for the cells in the stomach to absorb initially; thus, the hare actually chews food previously swallowed.<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern hares have very long ears and large hind feet; their feet are well furred. They are similar to American jackrabbits, which are true hares. Hares do not dig or occupy burrows the way rabbits do. Hares are mainly nocturnal and spend their inactive hours hiding in vegetation. They eat grasses and herbaceous matter as well as twigs and young bark of woody plants. Hares breed with great rapidity—the young attaining sexual maturity at six months after birth.<\/p>\n<p>The hare was ceremonially unclean (Lv 11:6; Dt 14:7), evidently because although it appeared to chew its cud, it did not have cloven hooves. Consumption of hares has also been forbidden among the Arabs, Chinese, and Lapps, but the hare was widely hunted by other people in ancient and modern times. Its great speed, prolific breeding, timidity, and caution have saved it from extermination by its many enemies.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hippopotamus\">Hippopotamus<\/p>\n<p>Large beast of problematic interpretation. Some early interpreters thought it referred to the elephant, others to the wild ox, the mammoth, or any large animal. It was called “behemoth” by the <span>kjv<\/span> translators. Today it is generally agreed that the reference is to the hippopotamus <em>(Hippopotamus amphibius),<\/em> a large, thick-skinned, amphibious mammal, an ungulate (having hooflike toenails) with a large head, a bulky, hairless body, and short legs.<\/p>\n<p>The description in Job 40:15-24 fits closely the modern hippopotamus (see <span>nlt<\/span>), except for the depiction of the tail. At present the hippopotamus is found only in the rivers of Africa, but there is fossil evidence that it has existed in the Holy Land, perhaps in the swamps of northern Galilee and the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n<p>The hippopotamus has highly developed sense organs, placed in such a way that it can see, hear, and smell almost without being seen; its eyes, ears, and nostrils can reach above water while the rest of the animal lies submerged. It has a large mouth, large tusks, and a short, heavy throat. The strong legs are so short that the belly almost reaches the ground when the animal is on the land. The hippopotamus lives on plants and herbs growing in rivers, but if food is scarce there, it forages on land, usually at night. In spite of its heavy body it is surprisingly agile on land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Horse\">Horse<\/p>\n<p>Przewalski’s horse (<em>Equus przewalskii,<\/em> an eastern race that roamed about Mongolia until modern firearms destroyed most of them after World War I) and the tarpan (a western race of southern Russia that became extinct in the Ukraine in 1851). The domesticated horse <em>(Equus caballus)<\/em> seems to have been derived from the tarpan. The original site of domestication is believed to have been Turkestan, a region north of Afghanistan and India, now in Russia. The horse differs from the donkey in that it has shorter ears, a longer mane with a forelock, a long hairy tail, and a soft, sensitive muzzle.<\/p>\n<p>Horses were used in war not only for riding but also for pulling the heavy, springless war chariots. Two kinds of horses were needed for these different purposes, and the Hebrews distinguished between chariot horses and cavalry horses.<\/p>\n\n<p>The Lord warned the early Israelites against unnecessarily amassing military strength in the form of horses and thereby following the oppressive tactics of the powerful Egyptians (Dt 17:14-16), but the demands of war caused both David and Solomon to import horses from Egypt into their kingdoms and to breed them. Solomon greatly increased the number of horses in the Jewish kingdom and maintained large stables at various cities (1 Kgs 10:26) such as the regional defense centers of Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer (1 Kgs 9:15-19). Ahab’s horses are mentioned in 1 Kings 18:5, and records of Shalmaneser III state that Ahab furnished 2,000 chariots to a coalition against Assyria.<\/p>\n<p>In early Israel, the horse was opposed as a symbol of pagan luxury and of dependence on physical power for defense (Dt 17:16; 1 Sm 8:11; Ps 20:7; Is 31:1). Horse trading, mentioned as early as Genesis 47:17, was carried on by Solomon between Egypt and the Syro-Hittite principalities (1 Kgs 10:28-29). Most biblical references to horses refer to their use in war, but horses were also used for transportation. Riding seems to have been less popular than the use of chariots. Cavalry units were not introduced until the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> by the Medes. Joseph rode in Pharaoh’s second horse-drawn chariot (Gn 41:43), and Absalom made a display by riding a horse-drawn chariot (2 Sm 15:1). Naaman traveled by horse and chariot (2 Kgs 5:9). Later, horses were so common in Jerusalem that the royal palace had a special horse gate (2 Chr 23:15), and a gate of the city itself was known as the Horse Gate (Neh 3:28; Jer 31:40). Mordecai rode a royal horse of King Xerxes as a sign of honor (Est 6:8-11). Horses are often spoken of figuratively (Ps 32:9; “mare,” Sg 1:9; “stallions,” Jer 5:8; 12:5), especially in the context of judgment (Hb 3:8; Zec 1:8; 6:1-8; Rv 6:2-8; 9:17; 19:11-16).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Warfare; Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyena\">Hyena<\/p>\n<p>Stocky carnivore <em>(Hyaena hyaena)<\/em> with coarse hair, an erect mane, and long hairs along the neck and back. Hyenas live in holes among rocks and banks. They are mainly nocturnal but are ordinarily neither noisy nor aggressive. Their cry, however, is a disagreeable, unearthly sound. Hyenas usually feed on carrion, crushing bones with their powerful jaws. If the carrion supply is inadequate, they will kill sheep, goats, or other small animals. When threatened, hyenas growl and erect their mane, but they rarely fight. They are massively built with forelegs longer than the hind legs.<\/p>\n<p>Known as scavengers in Africa, hyenas eat domestic refuse in the villages. In Palestine the striped hyena is a common predator, preferring rocky territory and even rock tombs. Since hyenas were notorious for raiding the graves of the dead, all Israelites who could afford it arranged for burial in tombs protected by massive stone doors. Absalom, King David’s son who was killed by Joab in the wild, was buried under a huge pile of stones to protect his corpse from molestation by hyenas (2 Sm 18:17).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Jackal\">Jackal<\/p>\n<p>Carnivore <em>(Canis aureus)<\/em> smaller than the true wolf and with a shorter tail. It is similar to the fox but has a broader head, shorter ears, and longer legs. The fox is solitary; the jackal tends to be gregarious. Its tail can be drooping or erect, compared with the long horizontal tail of the fox. Jackals usually prowl at night, either singly, in pairs, or in packs through open savannah country. They eat small mammals, poultry, fruit, vegetables, and carrion. They spend their days in thickets and clumps of vegetation. Often they obtain scraps from kills by larger carnivores. Jackals can run at speeds of about 33 miles (53 kilometers) per hour.<\/p>\n<p>The jackal can reach a height of about 20 inches (51 centimeters), roughly the size of a German shepherd dog. Its back is pale yellow with dark, almost black, flanks. Its lips are black and its ears white on the inside. The howl of the jackal sounds like the crying of a child or the heartrending wail of the bereaved (Mi 1:8; cf. Jb 30:29). To other jackals the howl is merely an invitation calling the pack together for its nocturnal hunting.<\/p>\n<p>OT references are chiefly to jackals prowling around ruined cities and wilderness areas (Neh 2:13; Ps 44:19; Is 13:22; 34:13; 35:7; Jer 9:11; 14:6; 49:33; 51:37; Lam 4:3; 5:18; Mal 1:3). Many such references are translated “dragon” in the <span>kjv<\/span>, but “jackal” is more appropriate.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leech\">Leech<\/p>\n<p>Segmented worm (class Hirundinea) up to five inches (12.7 centimeters) long with a flat body equipped with suction pads at each end. The mouth, located at the bottom of the front suction pad, has three teeth that the leech uses to pierce the skin of its host. The leech feeds on blood, and its glands secrete an anticoagulant to prevent the blood from clotting. The ordinary medicinal leech (Hirudo medicinalis) is abundant in springs and ponds from the Negev Desert to Galilee. It adheres to the bodies of human beings and animals that submerge themselves in water, injects its anticoagulant, and sucks their blood.<\/p>\n<p>The reference in Proverbs 30:15 is uncertain (see <span>nlt<\/span>) but may be to the parasitic and greedy nature of the horse leech (genus <em>Haemopis<\/em>). The small horse leech enters its host’s mouth and nostrils from water while the animal is drinking. A leech weighing one-half ounce (14.2 grams) has been known to gorge itself with two and a half ounces (71 grams) of concentrated blood and then to exist for 15 months with no more to eat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leopard\">Leopard<\/p>\n<p>Called <em>Panthera pardus tulliana,<\/em> it is the most widespread of all the large wildcats. In rocky areas it lives in caves, but in forested regions it lives in thick vegetation. In OT times many lived in the vicinity of Mt Hermon (Sg 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>The leopard is somewhat smaller than the tiger, measuring up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) in length with a tail of about 30 inches (.8 meter). Its body is better proportioned than that of the tiger. The leopard takes its victim by surprise from a silent ambush, often concealing itself near villages or watering places and waiting for its prey, remaining in one spot for long spans of time. The leopard is swift on the ground (Hb 1:8), agile in trees, and very graceful in its movements. Its color is yellowish speckled with black spots (Jer 13:23). Daniel and John saw visions in which leopards were symbols of world powers (Dn 7:6; Rv 13:2).<\/p>\n<p>The leopard is a wary and cunning animal, formidable and ferocious (Jer 5:6; Hos 13:7; cf. Is 11:6). The leopard is dangerous not only to domestic animals but also to humans. With its natural camouflage it can hide on the forest floor, blending into the changing light and shadows. The Israelites were terrified of the leopard because it constantly ravaged their sheep and goats. Several biblical place names suggest that they were known for the leopards in their vicinity: Nimrah, Beth-nimrah, and Nimrim, a district northeast of the Dead Sea. It has survived in the Holy Land into the present century; a few leopards still exist in remote areas near Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leviathan\">Leviathan<\/p>\n<p>Sea monster mentioned several times in the Bible (Pss 74:14; 104:26; Is 27:1, <span>nlt<\/span>). It may refer to any of the larger marine animals such as large jellyfish, whales, or sharks, or to a large reptile like the crocodile. Some scholars think “Leviathan” may refer to animals now extinct, such as ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs (marine reptiles similar to dinosaurs). The scriptural term might also refer to certain dinosaurs that spent part of their lives half-submerged in shallow lakes and oceans. Other scholars believe that most of the references are to the crocodile.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Crocodile (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lion\">Lion<\/p>\n<p>Large, tawny-colored carnivore <em>(Panthera leo)<\/em> that preys chiefly on hoofed mammals and charges by a series of leaps and bounds. Within historic times the lion ranged in Africa, Europe, and the Holy Land. In ancient times the territories of the African and Persian lions met in the Middle East. The lion of the Holy Land was the Asiatic or Persian lion <em>(Panthera leo persica).<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The males have heavy manes that stop at the shoulders but cover much of the chest. The Persian lion cannot climb and is mainly nocturnal, returning to its lair or a thicket by day (Jer 4:7; 25:38; Na 2:11-12). This lion is about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long with a tasseled tail 30 inches (.8 meter) or so long; its shoulders may reach a height of 35 inches (.9 meter). It is one of the smallest of the lion breeds.<\/p>\n<p>Lions are usually found in pairs, though sometimes in larger numbers. A small group is known as a pride. They generally prefer open country but in Palestine evidently prowled the subtropical vegetation of the Jordan River valley. Lions, which usually hunt at dusk, kill smaller animals by a blow of the paw, larger ones by a bite in the throat. A lion does not remain in the same place for more than a few days. The animal is in its prime at about seven years of age, when it weighs from 400 to 600 pounds (181.6 to 272.4 kilograms).<\/p>\n<p>The lion does not characteristically attack humans, though like other great cats it may become a man-eater (1 Kgs 13:24-28; 20:36; 2 Kgs 17:25-26; Ps 57:4; Dn 6:7-27). Ordinarily, it attacks only out of great hunger or in self-defense. A very young lion that attacks humans can become dangerous if it develops a taste for human flesh. A very old lion, expelled from the pride because it can no longer keep up in the pursuit of antelope or gazelles, may choose humans as a relatively slow-moving prey.<\/p>\n<p>A lion generally roars only on a full stomach—that is, after it has consumed its prey (Ps 22:13; Ez 22:25; Am 3:4). Nevertheless, its roaring arouses fear (Am 3:8; 1 Pt 5:8). The lion is a bold (2 Sm 17:10; Prv 28:1), destructive animal (Ps 7:2; Jer 2:30; Hos 5:14; Mi 5:8), and the enemy of flocks (Am 3:12).<\/p>\n<p>Lions were common in biblical times in all parts of the Holy Land. Hebrew has at least seven words for lion and young lion. The lion is referred to about 130 times in the OT—more than any other wild animal. Lions were evidently much less common in NT times. After gradually declining, they became extinct in Palestine shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 1300. The lion was present in Mesopotamia, however, until the end of the 19th century.<\/p>\n<p>Lions played an important part in the political and religious symbolism of the Near East (1 Kgs 10:19-20). In Assyria and Babylonia the lion was regarded as a royal beast (Dn 7:4). Oriental monarchs maintained artificial lion pits as places of execution (Ez 19:1-9; Dn 6:7-16). Animals for these were captured in camouflaged nets or pits. To the Jews, the lion was the mightiest of beasts (Prv 30:29-31). Thus, it symbolized leadership (Gn 49:9-10; Nm 24:9) and hence eventually became a title for Christ (Rv 5:5). It was also the ensign of Judah’s tribe and was used by King Solomon in the decoration of his house and the temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lizard\">Lizard<\/p>\n<p>Reptiles of the suborder Lacertilia. Their skin is covered with scales. The lizard is a useful creature because it captures harmful insects and worms. Like other reptiles, it lays eggs with shells softer than those of a bird and with no clear division between the yolk and the white. Lizards are “cold-blooded” organisms without a temperature-maintenance mechanism; hence, they become inactive in cold weather.<\/p>\n<p>Lizards can survive in barren parched countryside. In the Near East they are encountered in great numbers in the Arabian Desert, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Judean wilderness. There may be as many as 44 different species of lizards in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The Dabb lizard (genus <em>Uromastyx<\/em>), which attains a length of about 24 inches (61 centimeters), is found in the Negev Desert. It is omnivorous, an unusual trait since most lizards are insectivorous. It has a hard, rough skin, green with brown spots; a short, rounded head; and a powerful tail encircled with a row of strong spines that it uses as a weapon of defense.<\/p>\n<p>Lizards are listed as ceremonially unclean in Jewish law (Lv 11:29-31). The fact that lizards crawl on their bellies made them unclean. Contact with a lizard’s carcass defiled a law-abiding Jew (Lv 11:32-36). The <span>nlt<\/span> translates the “lizards” of Leviticus 11 as “great lizard,” “gecko,” “monitor lizard,” “sand lizard,” and “chameleon.” The monitor lizard is a large lizard that lives in the deserts of southern Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt. It is up to 55 inches (1.4 meters) long with a long snout and sharp teeth. Other translators and commentators render the original Hebrew in a wide variety of ways, including “tortoise,” “ferret,” “lizard,” “snail,” “mole,” and even “water hen.” The fact that most of the original Hebrew words occur only once in Scripture makes it very difficult to be certain about their appropriate translation.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gecko (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Locust\">Locust<\/p>\n<p>An insect of the family <em>Acridiidae.<\/em> It is referred to by at least 12 different names in Scripture. The various Hebrew words may refer to different stages of its development from larva to adult or to the type of damage that it causes. Locusts are characterized by swarming and mass migration. In modern times they have caused extensive and disastrous destruction to vegetation. Grasshoppers do not swarm or migrate en masse, differentiating them from the true locusts.<\/p>\n<p>The OT mentions several different species of locusts. Leviticus 11:22 seems to refer to the slant-faced (bald) locust and also to the katydid, or long-horned grasshopper. The reference in Deuteronomy 28:42 may be to the mole cricket. In Joel 1:4 and 2:25 and in Nahum 3:16-17, successive stages of the insect’s development are described. The cutting locust (<span>kjv<\/span> “palmerworm”) of Joel is probably the first instar (stage of development), the swarming locusts (<span>kjv<\/span> “locust”) are middle stages, and the hopping locusts (<span>kjv<\/span> “cankerworm”) later instars but not yet fully matured insects. In the adult stage, called destroying locusts (<span>kjv<\/span> “caterpillar”), the color of the locust is reddish brown, which turns to yellow with a brownish network on the wings.<\/p>\n<p>Only three of the hundreds of varieties of locusts found in Bible lands are capable of multiplying into great swarms, and only the desert locust <em>(Schistocerca gergaria)<\/em> can be considered widespread in all the Bible lands. The desert locust is native to the Sudan (Africa). It is a little over two inches (5 centimeters) long and has a wingspread of some five inches (12.7 centimeters). It shows two phases, a solitary phase and a gregarious phase, with a possible third phase known as transiens. There are differences in the immature and adult forms of the phases in color and physiology.<\/p>\n<p>The quantity and distribution of rains are important factors in the extent of swarming. Moist soil is needed for depositing the eggs and permitting them to develop. Each female deposits from one to six egg pods, containing 28 to 146 eggs each. The larvae emerge in 15 to 43 days.<\/p>\n<p>In the gregarious phase (from the second stage of metamorphosis onward), the locust is driven by a strong wandering instinct. Masses of them form a random procession of overflowing locust bodies that ignore any obstruction. They swarm over everything (Jl 2:4-9). The only regulator of their activities is temperature; they are immobilized by high or low temperatures. Taking to wing they may move 1,200 miles (1,930.8 kilometers) from their native home. They fly in compact formations large enough to blot out the light of the sun. Their movement seems to be controlled by hormones, but the direction is influenced by the wind. The swarms consume almost every plant in their path, sparing only the carob, sycamore, castor tree, and oleander bush.<\/p>\n<p>A locust plague was one of the most severe evils to come upon the ancient world (Dt 28:38). Joel 2:1-11 describes a locust plague in graphic terms, using it as a symbol of God’s destroying judgment. Special days of prayer, fasting, and trumpet blowing were prescribed to remove locust plagues (1 Kgs 8:37-38; 2 Chr 6:28-29; Jl 2:12-17). Locusts symbolized powerful and merciless enemies that completely destroyed the earnings of human toil (Jgs 6:5; Is 33:4; Jer 46:23; 51:27; Na 3:15).<\/p>\n<p>Bedouins eat locusts raw, roasted, or boiled, preserving them by drying and threading. They are also crushed and ground, and the grist used in cooking or eaten with bread, sometimes mixed with honey and dates. Such was the diet of John the Baptist (Mk 1:6). The Greeks ground locusts in stone mortars to make flour of them.<\/p>\n<p>The ancients considered the two large hind legs, or jumping legs, as separate limbs and had a special name for them. Hence locusts were described as having four legs, a reference to the four smaller walking legs. “Going on all fours” thus referred to creeping or walking as opposed to jumping and did not mean that the unclean insects had only four legs in all. Because of its two hind jumping legs, the locust was exempted from the prohibition against unclean insects (Lv 11:20-23).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Plagues upon Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mole\">Mole<\/p>\n<p>Rodent <em>(Spalax ehrenbergi)<\/em> from six to nine inches (15 to 23 centimeters) long, which burrows in any area where the soil is suitable for digging; it should be called a mole rat. Common in the Holy Land, large numbers are found in the vicinity of Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:20 refers to the mole, as does Leviticus 11:29-30 (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The mole rat has no tail and is molelike in appearance, but neither true moles nor shrews have ever been found in the Holy Land. The mole rat’s teeth are strong and protruding like those of a squirrel. The neck is short and thick with a plump body shaped like a sausage. The short legs have broad paws with claws adapted for burrowing. The fur is soft, thick, and ashen gray. Its ears and almost sightless eyes, which are no larger than poppyseeds, are hidden in the fur. Folklore taught that touching a mole rat would result in blindness.<\/p>\n<p>In the wet winter season the mole rat builds breeding mounds resembling those of pocket gophers. It builds less complex resting mounds in the summer, although both have rather elaborate tunnel systems. The mole rat feeds on roots, bulbs, tubers, and various other subterranean plant parts, often doing extensive damage to agriculture.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Moth\">Moth<\/p>\n<p>Insect of the genus <em>Tineola<\/em> that lays its eggs on wool or furs, its larvae feeding on those materials. The destructive qualities of moths are referred to in several biblical passages (Jb 13:28; Ps 39:11; Is 50:9; Hos 5:12; Mt 6:19-20; Lk 12:33; Jas 5:2). In Isaiah 51:8 “worm” (<span>nlt<\/span>) refers specifically to the larva of the clothes moth. The moth symbolizes disintegration, decay, and weakening. It is only the larvae that do the damage. The adult is quite harmless and feeds mainly on the nectar of flowers. It is easily crushed (Jb 4:19). The clothes moth reproduces in May or June. It enters human dwellings in the evening. A week after the eggs are laid the larvae appear and immediately begin their work of destruction, eating anything within reach made of animal fibers.<\/p>\n<p>The moth’s destructive activity is done in secret without any sound and without any dramatic appearance, such as a swarm that blots out the sun. In an age when wealth was counted more in possessions than in money, and when among those possessions wool clothing was highly valued, moths could literally cause economic disaster; hence the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:19-20).<\/p>\n<p>There are hundreds of species of moths other than the clothes moth in the Holy Land; they are harmless to leaves, flowers, fruit, trees, and seeds. As with the clothes moth, the larvae inflict the damage.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mouse\">Mouse<\/p>\n<p>Rodent of the family Muridae, especially genus <em>Mus.<\/em> The mouse was regarded as unclean because, being short legged, it was considered one of the creeping creatures (Lv 11:29). Mice known as commensals live in dwellings and tend to have longer tails and to be darker in color than wild mice, which are active chiefly at night. Mice are good climbers and even good swimmers. Wild mice eat many kinds of vegetation, including seeds, fleshy roots, leaves, and stems. At times they store food.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for “mouse” (Lv 11:29; 1 Sm 6:4-5; Is 66:17) is probably a general term for various rats and mice. The root meaning of the Hebrew word “mouse” is “destruction of corn,” a reference to the damage mice do to field crops. At least 23 varieties of mouselike rodents are known in the Holy Land. They cause food spoilage, damage household articles, and transport the host fleas that spread typhus, spotted fever, and bubonic plague. Plague bacteria may have caused the tumors or swellings among the Philistines (1 Sm 6:5). Isaiah 66:17 refers to a pre-exilic Canaanite cultic practice in which mice were eaten; the reference may actually be to the hamster. A number of rodents are eaten by Arabs of the Near East; the gerbil is considered a special delicacy. <em>See<\/em> Mole (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mule\">Mule<\/p>\n<p>Hybrid offspring of a male ass and a female horse <em>(Equus asinus mulus),<\/em> ordinarily sterile. The offspring of a female donkey and a stallion (male horse) is known as a hinny and is of little value because of its inferior size.<\/p>\n<p>Because crossbreeding was forbidden in the law (Lv 19:19), the Israelites procured mules from the Gentiles, perhaps from the Phoenicians, since Tyre (a Phoenician seaport in what is now southern Lebanon) imported horses and mules (Ez 27:14). Mules did not appear in Israel until David’s reign (2 Sm 13:29), possibly because of the rarity of horses among the Hebrews. Mules were used chiefly by members of the royal court and by other nobles. King David rode on a mule, and Solomon rode to his inaugaration on King David’s mule (1 Kgs 1:33). Absalom met his death riding on a mule (2 Sm 18:9). Mules were less common than horses, camels, and asses in the postexilic community (Ezr 2:66). In antiquity Asia Minor was especially noted for breeding fine mules.<\/p>\n<p>Mules have long enjoyed a reputation for obstinacy, but that trait is not mentioned in the Bible. The mule is prized for riding and for carrying heavy burdens, especially in warm mountainous regions. They are sure-footed and thrive best in hot, dry climates. The mule has the frugality, endurance, and steady gait of an ass along with the size, strength, swiftness, and courage of a horse. Mules are almost never sick. They live longer than horses. They can carry a load of up to 300 pounds (136 kilograms) as far as 30 miles (48.3 kilometers) a day.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Travel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pig\">Pig<\/p>\n<p>Most properly, newborn swine. “Swine” is technically the better name for the species, but it is rarely used in common speech today. The domestic pigs of the Middle East derived from the wild pig <em>(Sus scrofa).<\/em> The pig is the most prolific and abundant supplier of meat and fat for food. A thick layer of fat just under the skin is especially pronounced in domestic breeds. Pigs cannot be driven, so they are of value only to the settled farmer. The Hebrews were originally a nomadic people; therefore, they had little use for an animal closely associated with settled life. An Egyptian prince of about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>, however, is recorded as owning a herd of 1,500 swine.<\/p>\n<p>The pig is clumsily built, yet lively and able to move with agility and speed. The most conspicuous characteristic of the pig is a truncated, mobile snout terminating in a disc-shaped surface on which the nostrils are located. Most pigs have large tusks in both jaws which grow continuously in life. The tusks of the upper jaw are unique in that they curve upward instead of pointing downward as in most animals. The excrement of a pig has an almost unbearable odor, which clings not only to the pig itself but also to swineherds, who can be identified a long way off.<\/p>\n<p>Pigs were never raised in the Holy Land by Jews. The great herd into which Jesus drove the unclean spirits was encountered in the land of the Gadarenes, a non-Jewish area east of the Jordan. The Gadarene demons took refuge in a herd of pigs feeding on a bluff overlooking the Sea of Galilee (Mt 8:28-32).<\/p>\n<p>Wild pigs were found in the Holy Land as in many countries today. Psalm 80:13 refers to the destructiveness of a wild boar (the male, or hog) attacking growing crops. A party of wild boars can destroy an entire vineyard or a field of crops in a single night. They devour, trample, and ravage everything within reach.<\/p>\n<p>Boar hunts were common in ancient Mesopotamia. Wild boars do not attack unless molested, but they are dangerous when aroused. They travel in bands of from 6 to 50 and are most active in the evening and early morning hours. The body is covered with stiff bristles and usually some finer hair, but the body covering is often quite scanty. Wild pigs are mainly vegetarian, feeding on roots, nuts, grains, and plant stems. Wild boars were particularly abundant in the mountainous regions of Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, in the Jordan River valley, and in wooded sections such as Mt Tabor.<\/p>\n<p>Strict Jews would not even mention swine by name but would always substitute the term “the abomination.” Israelites considered themselves polluted if they were even touched by a swine’s bristle. To the Jews, the pig symbolized filth and ugliness. Pigs will eat fecal material, vermin, rodents, carrion, and the like (2 Pt 2:22). Proverbs 11:22 refers to the incongruity of a golden ring in the nose of an animal showing such characteristics. A similar metaphor occurs in Jesus’ statement about casting pearls before swine (Mt 7:6). The prodigal son’s degeneration was shown by his being forced in his poverty to feed pigs and eat their food (Lk 15:15-16).<\/p>\n<p>Eating the flesh of pigs was forbidden to the Jews (Lv 11:7; Dt 14:8). The Canaanites in the Holy Land killed and ate pigs freely. In intertestamental times Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), a Syrian king whose territories included Israel, used the pig to “Hellenize” the Jews. He first tested their loyalty to the Jewish faith by requiring the consumption of pork, considered a delicacy by the Greeks (2 Macc 6:18). The act of desecration that drove the Jews to rebellion, however, was the sprinkling of pig blood on the temple altar in a sacrifice to Zeus (1 Macc 1:47).<\/p>\n<p>Pigs were frequently used in pagan worship (Is 65:4; 66:3, 17), which may account for their being forbidden to the Jews as food. Evidence in the Holy Land shows that pigs were sacrificed long before Hellenistic times. Pig bones were found in a grotto below the rock-cut place of sacrifice at Gezer. A similar underground chamber with vessels containing piglet bones at Tirzah dates to the middle Bronze Age (about 2000 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Alabaster fragments of a statuette of a pig ready to be sacrificed have been unearthed. Swine were sacrificed to Aphrodite (Venus) in Greece and Asia Minor. In addition, pigs were sacrificed in connection with oaths and treaties; in the <em>Iliad,<\/em> Agamemnon sacrificed a boar to Zeus and Helios. So it is not surprising that among the Jews the pig became a symbol of filthiness and paganism.<\/p>\n<p>It is possible that eating pork was forbidden primarily because the pig may carry many worm parasites such as trichina, though that is also true of some “clean” animals. Another reason for forbidding their consumption may have been that pigs eat carrion. Some people are allergic to pork in hot weather—another suggested reason behind the Jewish taboo. The same taboo exists among the Muslims and existed in certain social strata in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Porcupine\">Porcupine<\/p>\n<p>Rodent, <em>Hystrix cristata,<\/em> which lives in forested areas, rocky hills, ravines, and valleys. The porcupine is still found in the Holy Land today. It has long quills that can be raised to give the appearance of a crest. It is almost entirely nocturnal. It burrows by day into a natural cavity or crevice. The Old World porcupine rarely climbed trees, although the New World porcupine frequently does. A porcupine may weigh as much as 60 pounds (27.2 kilograms). It eats fruit, bark, roots, and other vegetation, and carrion as well. Although its flesh is edible, the porcupine was not classed among the clean animals for the Israelites. The reference in Isaiah 34:11 (<span>rsv<\/span>) is probably to the porcupine, as is Isaiah 14:23 in the <span>nlt<\/span>. <em>See<\/em> Hedgehog.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Scorpion\">Scorpion<\/p>\n<p>Arthropod of the same group as spiders (arachnids). A dozen species of scorpions (order Scorpionida) are found in the Holy Land, but 90 percent of the scorpions are yellow scorpions, usually three to five inches (7.6 to 12.7 centimeters) long. The rock scorpion, also common to the Holy Land, is as thick as a man’s finger and from five to seven inches (12.7 to 17.8 centimeters) in length. Scorpions are slow, nocturnal invertebrates that rest beneath stones by day and prey on insects and other arachnids by night. At the end of its long tail the scorpion carries a poisonous sting that is fatal to most prey and extremely painful to humans (Rv 9:3, 5, 10; cf. 1 Kgs 12:11, 14). Scorpions symbolize Ezekiel’s evil countrymen (Ez 2:6) and the demonic forces of Satan (Lk 10:19). The scorpion is referred to as frequenting the Sinai Desert (Dt 8:15).<\/p>\n<p>A scorpion has from six to eight eyes. It has eight legs like a spider and two lobsterlike claws with which it catches and holds its prey. It feeds particularly on locusts and beetles. In many species the female scorpion eats the male after mating. Scorpions lay eggs that hatch very shortly after laying. Scorpions prefer warmer climates, and because of their desire for warmth, enter houses, especially at night, hiding in beds, blankets, footwear, and clothing.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sheep\">Sheep<\/p>\n<p>Domestic animal, <em>Ovis orientalis,<\/em> referred to directly or by some term such as ewe, lamb, ram, or by some fact concerning them over 700 times in Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Sheep represented the chief wealth and total livelihood of pastoral peoples, providing food to eat, milk to drink, wool for the making of cloth, and hides and bones for other uses. In addition, the sheep was a medium of exchange and a sacrificial animal. The number of sheep raised in ancient times was prodigious. Mesha, king of Moab, paid a tribute annually of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams (2 Kgs 3:4). The Israelites took 250,000 sheep from the Hagrites (1 Chr 5:21).<\/p>\n<p>Sheep shearing was often done for festivals (2 Sm 13:23). The sheep was held down on its side and its legs were tied together; then it lay docilely while its wool was clipped (Is 53:7). Sheep reserved for burnt offerings were not shorn; nothing could be held back from a sacrifice to the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>Wool had to be processed before it could be used for clothing. First it was washed, sometimes while still on the sheep, then carded and perhaps weighed for the market. The spinning of wool was regarded as a woman’s work (Prv 31:19), but weaving the spun thread into cloth on a loom was primarily a man’s occupation.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible reports that Abel kept sheep (Gn 4:2). The first sheep to be domesticated was probably the argali <em>(Ovis ammon),<\/em> a variety of the urial <em>(Ovis vignei),<\/em> a mountainous species still existing in Turkestan and Mongolia. Five breeds had reached Mesopotamia by 2000 <span>BC<\/span>; all were of the urial stock.<\/p>\n<p>The sheep known in Israel was the broad-tailed sheep <em>(Ovis orientalis vignei<\/em> or <em>laticaudata),<\/em> of which the tail weighs from 10 to 15 pounds (4.5 to 6.8 kilograms) and has always been considered a delicacy. Thus the Lord asked for this choice part as a sacrifice (Ex 29:22-25).<\/p>\n<p>Only the ram of the broad-tailed sheep has horns, but in other varieties of sheep in the Holy Land the ewe also has horns. The horns, two to three inches (5 to 8 centimeters) in diameter, can be potent weapons. Rams’ horns could be used as trumpets (Jos 6:4) or as oil containers (1 Sm 16:1).<\/p>\n<p>Although the sheep is very similar to the goat, it is differentiated by a lower forehead, its angulated spiral horns marked with transverse wrinkles and curved slightly outward, its covering of wool, and its lack of a “goatee.” Most sheep are white (Ps 147:16; Is 1:18; Dn 7:9; Rv 1:14).<\/p>\n<p>The flesh of sheep was a luxury in the biblical culture. King Solomon required a daily provision of 100 sheep for his table (1 Kgs 4:23), but the common people ate lamb or mutton only on festive occasions. A young ram was usually chosen because the ewes were more important to the future prospects of the herd. The meat was boiled in large caldrons. The milk of the sheep is extremely rich; in biblical times it was usually allowed to curdle before drinking. Possibly some Israelites kept lambs in their houses as pets (2 Sm 12:3-4).<\/p>\n<p>To protect the flock at night against predatory attacks, the shepherd tried to provide a fold. In meadows near villages, folds were built and watchmen were hired to relieve the shepherds. The shepherds of the nativity story were out in the field (Lk 2:8); they had no fold but probably had set up a tent for shelter, consisting simply of goat-hair blankets spread across sapling supports. The scarcity of springs in the Holy Land made the watering of the flock a crucial problem for the shepherd (Gn 13:8-11).<\/p>\n<p>Wild mountain sheep, varieties of <em>Ovis orientalis,<\/em> are known in the Mediterranean area (Dt 14:5). The Deuteronomy passage (<span>kjv<\/span> “chamois”) might also refer to <em>Ovis traelaphus,<\/em> a sheep about five feet high (1.5 meters) with long, curved horns. Another possibility is the Barbary sheep that lives in small flocks in rugged mountain areas in Barbary, Egypt, and Mt Sinai. The true chamois is unknown in Palestine.<\/p>\n<p>The sheep is also used figuratively in Scripture. The ram represented great strength and fittingly symbolized Medo-Persia in Daniel’s vision (Dn 8:3). It is the nature of sheep to be gentle and submissive (Is 53:7; Jer 11:19), defenseless (Mi 5:8; Mt 10:16), and in constant need of guidance and care (Nm 27:17; Mt 9:36). Such qualities are regarded as desirable in the lives of believers in Christ; hence the many figurative references to sheep in the NT and to Jesus as shepherd (Mk 6:34; Jn 10:1-30; Rom 8:35-37; Heb 13:20-21; 1 Pt 2:25). The resurrected Christ told the apostle Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Offerings and Sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Snail\">Snail<\/p>\n<p>Invertebrate gastropods (mollusks). Land snails are very numerous in the Near East. Some freshwater forms serve as hosts for the schistosome worm, the fluke parasite causing the dread disease bilharzia (schistosomiasis).<\/p>\n<p>Purple dyes of all shades were highly valued in the ancient world. A royal purple dye was obtained from secretions of a sea snail <em>(Murex trunculus<\/em> and <em>Murex brandaris).<\/em> Evidently, that process was developed by Phoenicians, Egyptians, and Assyrians as early as 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The “purple” fishermen had their own guild during the time of the Roman Empire. The snails were harvested during the fall and winter seasons; in the spring, when egg laying took place, little dye was available. The snails tended to remain concealed in the summer. They inhabited the waters off Crete and Phoenicia. Tyrian purple, produced in the Phoenician city of Tyre, the center of the purple-dye industry, was obtained by a double dyeing. Large deposits of murex shells from dyeing operations have been found along the Mediterranean shoreline. The Israelites had to import purple goods (Ez 27:16). Lydia was a “seller of purple” or of cloth so dyed (Acts 16:14). Purple was a sign of distinction, royalty, and wealth (cf. Ex 25:4; 28:5-6, 15; Nm 15:38; 2 Chr 2:7; Est 8:15; Prv 31:22; Sg 3:10; Ez 27:7; Dn 5:7).<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 30:34-35 refers to “onycha,” which was an important ingredient of incense. Onycha is the horny, clawlike operculum (the plate that closes off the opening of its shell when a snail is retracted) of a Near Eastern member of the molluskan family Strombidae. The operculum is sometimes used for offense or locomotion as well as for defense. When burned, the operculum gives off a sharp, strong scent, and when mixed with more fragrant but less powerful substances is even more potent. The name “onycha” is derived from a Greek word <em>(onyx)<\/em> for a fingernail or a claw.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Dye, Dyeing, Dyer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Snake\">Snake<\/p>\n<p>Various species of snake, suborder Ophidia (Serpentes). In the Bible nine Hebrew words and four Greek ones refer to snakes. The most common Hebrew word is onomatopoeic—that is, it is an imitation of a snake hissing or of the sound it produces as it scrapes its scales along the ground (cf. Jer 46:22). Many types of snakes lay eggs (Is 59:5), although some retain the eggs in the body until ready to hatch.<\/p>\n<p>Snakes are among the most widespread reptiles and are found on all continents except Antarctica; they decrease in numbers and species toward the poles but increase as one approaches the equator. Thirty-three species of snakes are known in Palestine and neighboring countries, 20 of which are poisonous. Two dangerous characteristics of the snake noted by biblical writers are its inconspicuous way of moving and the ease with which it hides itself.<\/p>\n<p>Many snakes are able to swallow animals several times their own diameter because of their unusually flexible jaw mechanism. They lack not only legs but also movable eyelids. Snakes periodically shed their skins. The tongue is actually a hearing apparatus sensitive to airborne vibrations and probably to heat waves.<\/p>\n<p>The venom of poisonous species is a clear, thin secretion, transmitted to the victim’s bloodstream by means of fangs. Two types of venom are known: that of the vipers, which affects respiration and disintegrates red blood cells, and that of the cobras, which paralyzes the nervous system.<\/p>\n<p>The “asp” referred to in the Bible is probably the cobra; the “adder” is the viper. The “cockatrice” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is probably the adder. Serpents were associated with worship in Canaanite religion and symbolized evil deities among many other peoples. Steles (upright stones bearing inscriptions) have been unearthed at several sites in the Holy Land and Syria depicting a god or worshiper with a snake winding about the legs or body. Because the Israelites were burning incense in pagan worship of Moses’ bronze serpent (Nm 21:8-9), King Hezekiah destroyed it in his religious reform (2 Kgs 18:4).<\/p>\n<p>Although snakes have been an object of veneration in some religions, in the Judeo-Christian tradition snakes represent evil and, more specifically, the devil. That association began in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:1-15) and is also found in the book of Revelation (12:9; 20:2-3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adder (above); Asp (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Spider\">Spider<\/p>\n<p>Animal of the order Araneida. Between 600 and 700 different species inhabit the Holy Land. Spiders are different from insects in that, like scorpions, they have four pairs of legs instead of three. Spiders are equipped with poison glands—the effectiveness varying from species to species. A few can kill only insects, but others can also kill birds and mice.<\/p>\n<p>Most spiders have a pair of spinnerets attached to silk glands on the underside of the abdomen; from them a web is extruded. In the Bible the spider’s web is referred to as a symbol of frailty and insecurity (Jb 8:14; Is 59:5-6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sponge\">Sponge<\/p>\n<p>Simple marine animals, phylum Porifera. The term “sponge” also refers to those animals’ skeletal remains. The sponge has a porous body composed of tubules and cells.<\/p>\n<p>Sponge fishing was well known in the Mediterranean area in ancient times. It was practiced particularly along the Anatolian and Syrian coasts. Sponges were harvested by divers. The use of sponges in absorbing liquids is referred to in the Bible (Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Unicorn\">Unicorn<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Wild Ox (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wasp\">Wasp<\/p>\n<p>Insects of the family Vespidae. Hornets are social wasps that build large aerial apartment houses in which 1,000 or more individuals may live. In the Bible the hornet is used as a metaphor for God’s use of military forces (Ex 23:28; Dt 7:20; Jos 24:12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Whale\">Whale<\/p>\n<p>Largest of all living creatures, including those that have become extinct. Whales are air-breathing mammals of the order Cetacea.<\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of whales visit the shores of the Holy Land at times. The finback whale <em>(Balaenoptera physalus)<\/em> weighs about 200 tons (181 metric tons) and lives mainly in the Arctic region but sometimes passes through the Straits of Gibraltar to reach the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It feeds on small marine organisms that it strains through its whale bone; it does not have teeth. The finback whale’s esophagus is narrow.<\/p>\n<p>The sperm whale <em>(Physeter catodon),<\/em> about 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, has a curiously shaped head that looks like a battering ram. The teeth in the lower jaw of the male sperm whale are about seven inches (17.8 centimeters) long. It feeds on big fish, even on sharks. It has a large throat opening.<\/p>\n<p>Whales are referred to in Genesis 1:21 and Job 7:12 (<span>kjv<\/span> only). The “great fish” of Jonah 2:1 need not have been a whale but could have been a large shark, such as the whale shark <em>(Rhineodon),<\/em> which grows 70 feet (21.3 meters) long and lacks the terrible teeth of other sharks. Whatever the actual marine organism, Jonah’s deliverance was miraculous. The Greek word for “whale” is sometimes used as a general term for “sea monster” or huge fish and may be used in that sense in Matthew 12:40.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WildOx\">Wild Ox<\/p>\n<p>Large, fierce, fleet, intractable animal <em>(Bos primigenius).<\/em> It had a long, lean rump with a straight back and a long, narrow head. The animal described in Job 39:9-12 is clearly the wild ox. The two horns (Dt 33:17), its outstanding characteristic, were straight and as long as the head (Nm 23:22; 24:8; Ps 22:21). Kings often symbolized their dominion by wearing a helmet with two wild ox horns (cf. Pss 92:10; 132:17-18). The horns were often used as drinking vessels by the Israelites; some were large enough to hold four gallons (15 liters).<\/p>\n<p>Hunting the wild ox was a favorite sport of Assyrian kings. Tiglath-pileser I hunted it in the Lebanon Mountains about 1100 <span>BC<\/span> (cf. Ps 29:6). At one time the animal referred to in Job 39:9-12 was thought to be the oryx or antelope because of the similarity between the Hebrew word in Job and the Arabian name for oryx. The translators of the <span>kjv<\/span> called the wild ox a “unicorn” because of representations found on Babylonian mosaics and Egyptian drawings. Those representations showed it in strict profile, showing only one horn—hence, “unicorn.” Jerome’s Vulgate, a Latin Bible translation (fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) and Martin Luther’s German version translated it similarly.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wolf\">Wolf<\/p>\n<p>Large doglike mammal <em>(Canis lupus)<\/em> that travels in bands of up to 30 animals. From the nose to the rump, the wolf measures about 3 feet (.9 meter); its drooping tail is about 18 inches (.5 meter) long. It looks much like a skinny German shepherd dog. The grayish yellow pelt is coarse and short haired.<\/p>\n<p>Wolves hunt singly or in relays, usually at night (Jer 5:6). Wolves have acute hearing and sight but rely chiefly on scent and usually catch their prey in a swift, open chase. The wolf has a reputation for boldness, fierceness, and voracity (Gn 49:27; Hb 1:8). It commonly kills more than it can eat or drag away and thus is known for its greediness.<\/p>\n<p>The wolf is a restless animal, always on the move; hunger drives it from one place to another in constant search of new hunting grounds. During spring and fall, wolves usually roam singly or in pairs, whereas in summer they may travel in family groups. In winter, several such groups may join to form a large pack. Wolves are intelligent, social creatures, faithful to their own kind. They mate for life. Individually, the wolf is a rather timid animal; it would much rather avoid human beings. But collectively wolves can be among the most dangerous animals alive.<\/p>\n<p>In Egypt, Rome, and Greece the wolf was considered sacred. Wolves were well known in the Holy Land and are still found there and also in many places in Asia Minor. Shepherds continually battled with wolves that plundered their flocks (Jn 10:12).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to wolves in a literal sense in only three places (Is 11:6; 65:25; Jn 10:12), all other references being figurative. Usually the wolf is a symbol of enemies or the wicked (e.g., Ez 22:27; Zep 3:3; Acts 20:29). Both the wolf’s courage and its cruelty were probably in the mind of the patriarch Jacob when he predicted the fate of Benjamin’s tribe (Gn 49:27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Worm\">Worm<\/p>\n<p>Actually insect larvae in most biblical references, usually maggots, the larvae of flies (see Fly, above). For example, maggots are evidently referred to in accounts of worms feeding on spoiled manna (Ex 16:19-20), corpses (Jb 21:26; Is 14:11), or open wounds (Jb 7:5). Mark 9:48 refers to a maggot that eats dead flesh. In Acts 12:23 a fatal, worm-induced abdominal disease of King Herod is mentioned. In other cases, the reference is to the larvae of other insects (Is 51:8). In Deuteronomy 28:39 and Jonah 4:7 the vine weevil <em>(Cochylis ambiguella)<\/em> is probably referred to; it destroys vines by boring into their stems. Comparing a man to a worm is a metaphor for abasement (Jb 25:6; Ps 22:6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANIMALS In biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals ...","summary_en":"ANIMALS In biblical usage, all members of the animal kingdom. Animals are mentioned throughout the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Animals figured in many important biblical events, including the Creation, the fall of man, the Flood, the ten plagues in Egypt, the Hebrew worship system, and the life of Jesus Christ. The people of both OT and NT times lived close to the land and were well acquainted with various animals so that the scriptural writers and Jesus himself frequently used animals ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4641,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bible*","title_en":"Bible*","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*<\/h3>\n<p>Derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">biblia<\/span> (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century <span>BC<\/span>) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42), and Paul spoke of them as “the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of course, there was no OT and NT before the coming of Christ, only one collection of sacred writings. But after the apostles and their associates produced another body of sacred literature, the church began to refer to the OT and the NT. Actually “testament” is the translation of a Greek word that might better be rendered “covenant.” It denotes an arrangement made by God for the spiritual guidance and benefit of human beings. The covenant is unalterable: humankind may accept it or reject it but cannot change it. “Covenant” is a common OT word; of several covenants described in the OT, the most prominent was the law given to Moses. While Israel was chafing and failing under the Mosaic covenant, God promised them a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31).<\/p>\n<p>The term “new covenant” appears several times in the NT. Jesus used it when he instituted the Lord’s Supper; by it he sought to call attention to the new basis of communion with God he intended to establish by his death (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The apostle Paul also spoke of that new covenant (2 Cor 3:6, 14), as did the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 8:8; 9:11-15). The detailed description of God’s new method of dealing with people (on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross) is the subject of the 27 books of the NT. God’s dealing with people in anticipation of the coming of Messiah (Hebrew equivalent of “Christ,” meaning “anointed one”) is certainly the major theme of the 39 books of the OT, though they deal with much more than that. Latin church writers used <em>testamentum<\/em> to translate “covenant,” and from them the use passed into English; so old and new covenants became OT and NT.<\/p>\n<p>At least the first half of the OT follows a logical and easily understood arrangement. In Genesis through Esther the history of Israel from Abraham to the restoration under Persian auspices appears largely in chronological order. Then follows a group of poetic books and the Major and Minor Prophets (“Major” meaning the books that are relatively long; “Minor” meaning the books that are relatively short).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also follows a generally logical arrangement. It begins with the four Gospels, which describe the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ and his training of disciples to carry on his work after his ascension. The book of Acts continues the narrative where the Gospels end and details the founding of the church and its spread through Mediterranean lands. In the latter part of the book the spotlight focuses on the apostle Paul and his church planting activities. Next come letters Paul addressed to churches he founded or to young ministers he tried to encourage. Following the Pauline Epistles come a group commonly called the General Epistles. The last book, Revelation, is an apocalyptic work.<\/p>\n<p>The OT was written almost entirely in Hebrew with a few isolated passages in Aramaic in the latter books. If one accepts the view that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT (the position the Scripture itself takes), the earliest books of the OT were written by about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> (provided one accepts the early date proposed for the exodus). If the last book written was Malachi (before 400 <span>BC<\/span>), composition took place during 1,000 years of time. All the writers (some 30 in number) were Jews: prophets, judges, kings, and other leaders in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The NT was probably written entirely in Greek. If James was the first to write a NT book before the middle of the first century, and if John was the last (composing Revelation about <span>AD<\/span> 90), the NT was written during a 50-year period in the latter half of the first century. All the writers (probably nine) were Jews, with the exception of Luke (writer of Luke and Acts), and they came from a variety of walks of life: fishermen, doctor, tax collector, and religious leaders.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of great diversity of authorship in the OT and NT, and composition spanning over 1,500 years, there is remarkable unity in the total thrust. Christians believe that God must have been superintending the production of a divine-human book that would properly present his message to humankind.<\/p>\n<p>The OT and NT are component parts of one divine revelation. The OT describes man and woman in the first paradise on the old earth; the NT concludes with a vision of the new heaven and new earth. The OT sees humankind as fallen from a sinless condition and separated from God; the NT views believers as restored to favor through the sacrifice of Christ. The OT predicts a coming Redeemer who will rescue men and women from eternal condemnation; the NT reveals the Christ who brought salvation. In most of the OT the spotlight focuses on a sacrificial system in which the blood of animals provided a temporary handling of the sin problem; in the New, Christ appeared as the one who came to put an end to all sacrifice—to be himself the supreme sacrifice. In the OT, numerous predictions foretold a coming Messiah who would save his people; in the New, scores of passages detail how those prophecies were minutely fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ: the “son of Abraham” and the “son of David” (Mt 1:1). As Augustine said more than 1,500 years ago, “The New is in the Old contained; the Old is in the New explained.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAuthorityoftheBible\">The Authority of the Bible<\/p>\n<p>Judge of men and nations, the self-revealed God wields unlimited authority and power. All creaturely authority and power is derived from that of God. As the sovereign Creator of all, the God of the Bible wills and has the right to be obeyed. The power God bestows is a divine trust, a stewardship. God’s creatures are morally accountable for their use or misuse of it. In fallen human society God wills civil government for the promotion of justice and order. He approves an ordering of authoritative and creative relationships in the home by stipulating certain responsibilities of husbands, wives, and children. He wills a pattern of priorities for the church as well: Jesus Christ the head, prophets and apostles through whom redemptive revelation came, and so on. The inspired Scriptures, revealing God’s transcendent will in objective written form, are the rule of faith and conduct through which Christ exercises his divine authority in the lives of Christians.<\/p>\n<p>Revolt against particular authorities has in our time widened into a revolt against all transcendent and external authority. The widespread questioning of authority is condoned and promoted in many academic circles. Philosophers with a radically secular outlook have affirmed that God and the supernatural are mythical conceptions, that natural processes and events comprise the only ultimate reality. All existence is said to be temporal and changing, all beliefs and ideals are declared to be relative to the age and culture in which they appear. Biblical religion, therefore, like all other, is asserted to be merely a cultural phenomenon. The Bible’s claim to divine authority is dismissed by such thinkers; transcendent revelation, fixed truths, and unchanging commandments are set aside as pious fictions.<\/p>\n<p>In the name of man’s supposed “coming of age,” radical secularism champions human autonomy and creative individuality. Man is his own lord and the inventor of his own ideals and values, it is said. He lives in a supposedly purposeless universe that has itself presumably been engendered by a cosmic accident. Therefore, human beings are declared to be wholly free to impose upon nature and history whatever moral criteria they prefer. In such a view, to insist on divinely given truths and values, on transcendent principles, would be to repress self-fulfillment and retard creative personal development. Hence, the radically secular view goes beyond opposing particular external authorities whose claims are considered arbitrary or immoral; radical secularism is aggressively hostile to all external and objective authority, viewing it as intrinsically restrictive of the autonomous human spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Any reader of the Bible recognizes rejection of divine authority and of a definitive revelation of what is right and good as an age-old phenomenon. It is not at all peculiar to contemporary man to “come of age”; it was found already in Eden. Adam and Eve revolted against the will of God in pursuit of individual preference and self-interest. But their revolt was recognized to be sin, not rationalized as philosophical <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> at the frontiers of evolutionary advance.<\/p>\n<p>If one takes a strictly developmental view, which considers all reality contingent and changing, what basis remains for humanity’s decisively creative role in the universe? How could a purposeless cosmos cater to individual self-fulfillment? Only the biblical alternative of the Creator-Redeemer God, who fashioned human beings for moral obedience and a high spiritual destiny, truly preserves the permanent, universal dignity of the human species. The Bible does so, however, by a demanding call for personal spiritual decision. The Bible sets forth man’s superiority to the animals, his high dignity (“a little lower than God,” Ps 8:5, <span>nasb<\/span>) because of the divine rational and moral image that he bears by creation. In the context of universal human involvement in Adamic sin, the Bible utters a merciful divine call to redemptive renewal through the mediatorial person and work of Christ. Fallen humanity is invited to experience the Holy Spirit’s renewing work, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and to anticipate a final destiny in the eternal presence of the God of justice and justification.<\/p>\n<p>Contemporary rejection of biblical tenets does not rest on any logical demonstration that the case for biblical theism is false; it turns rather on a subjective preference for alternative views of “the good life.”<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that “general divine revelation” does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (1:32). Yet it is the Bible as “special revelation” that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.<\/p>\n<p>Regard for the Bible is therefore decisive for the course of Western culture and in the long run for human civilization generally. Intelligible divine revelation, the basis for belief in the sovereign authority of the Creator-Redeemer God over all human life, rests on the reliability of what Scripture says about God and his purposes. Modern naturalism impugns the authority of the Bible and assails the claim that the Bible is the Word of God written, that is, a transcendently given revelation of the mind and will of God in objective literary form. Scriptural authority is the storm center both in the controversy over revealed religion and in the modern conflict over civilizational values.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblesViewofItself\">The Bible’s View of Itself<\/p>\n<p>The intelligible nature of divine revelation—the presupposition that God’s will is made known in the form of valid truths—is the central presupposition of the authority of the Bible. Much recent neo-Protestant theology demeaned the traditional evangelical emphasis as doctrinaire and static. It insisted instead that the authority of Scripture is to be experienced internally as a witness to divine grace engendering faith and obedience, thus disowning its objective character as universally valid truth. Somewhat inconsistently, almost all neo-Protestant theologians have appealed to the record to support cognitively whatever fragments of the whole seem to coincide with their divergent views, even though they disavow the Bible as a specially revealed corpus of authoritative divine teaching. If God’s revelational disclosure to chosen prophets and apostles is to be considered meaningful and true, it must be given not merely in isolated concepts capable of diverse meanings but in sentences or propositions. A proposition—that is, a subject, predicate, and connecting verb (or “copula”)—constitutes the minimal logical unit of intelligible communication. The OT prophetic formula “Thus saith the Lord” characteristically introduced propositionally disclosed truth. Jesus Christ employed the distinctive formula “But I say unto you” to introduce logically formed sentences that he represented as the veritable word or doctrine of God.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is authoritative because it is divinely authorized; in its own terms, “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tm 3:16, <span>niv<\/span>). According to this passage, the whole OT (or any element of it) is divinely inspired. Extension of the same claim to the NT is not expressly stated, but it is not merely implied. The New Testament contains indications that its content was to be viewed, and was in fact viewed, as no less authoritative than the Old. The apostle Paul’s writings are catalogued with “other Scriptures” (2 Pt 3:15-16). Under the heading of “Scripture,” 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 alongside Deuteronomy 25:4 (cf. 1 Cor 9:9). The book of Revelation, moreover, claims divine origin (1:1-3) and employs the term “prophecy” in the OT sense (22:9-10, 18). The apostles did not distinguish their spoken and written teaching but expressly declared their inspired proclamation to be the word of God (1 Cor 4:1; 2 Cor 5:20; 1 Thes 2:13).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible remains the most extensively printed, most widely translated, and most frequently read book in the world. Its words have been treasured in the hearts of multitudes like none other’s. All who have received its gifts of wisdom and promises of new life and power were at first strangers to its redemptive message, and many were hostile to its teaching and spiritual demands. In all generations its power to challenge persons of all races and lands has been demonstrated. Those who cherish the Book because it sustains future hope, brings meaning and power to the present, and correlates a misused past with the forgiving grace of God would not long experience such inner rewards if Scripture were not known to them as the authoritative, divinely revealed truth. To the Christian, Scripture is the Word of God given in the objective form of propositional truths through divinely inspired prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit is the giver of faith through that word.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>Several other major articles on the Bible follow:<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Canon of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Inspiration of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (Ancient)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (English)<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*<\/h3>\n<p>Derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">biblia<\/span> (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century <span>BC<\/span> spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century <span>BC<\/span>) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42), and Paul spoke of them as “the holy scriptures” (Rom 1:2).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. Of course, there was no OT and NT before the coming of Christ, only one collection of sacred writings. But after the apostles and their associates produced another body of sacred literature, the church began to refer to the OT and the NT. Actually “testament” is the translation of a Greek word that might better be rendered “covenant.” It denotes an arrangement made by God for the spiritual guidance and benefit of human beings. The covenant is unalterable: humankind may accept it or reject it but cannot change it. “Covenant” is a common OT word; of several covenants described in the OT, the most prominent was the law given to Moses. While Israel was chafing and failing under the Mosaic covenant, God promised them a “new covenant” (Jer 31:31).<\/p>\n<p>The term “new covenant” appears several times in the NT. Jesus used it when he instituted the Lord’s Supper; by it he sought to call attention to the new basis of communion with God he intended to establish by his death (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The apostle Paul also spoke of that new covenant (2 Cor 3:6, 14), as did the writer to the Hebrews (Heb 8:8; 9:11-15). The detailed description of God’s new method of dealing with people (on the basis of the finished work of Christ on the cross) is the subject of the 27 books of the NT. God’s dealing with people in anticipation of the coming of Messiah (Hebrew equivalent of “Christ,” meaning “anointed one”) is certainly the major theme of the 39 books of the OT, though they deal with much more than that. Latin church writers used <em>testamentum<\/em> to translate “covenant,” and from them the use passed into English; so old and new covenants became OT and NT.<\/p>\n<p>At least the first half of the OT follows a logical and easily understood arrangement. In Genesis through Esther the history of Israel from Abraham to the restoration under Persian auspices appears largely in chronological order. Then follows a group of poetic books and the Major and Minor Prophets (“Major” meaning the books that are relatively long; “Minor” meaning the books that are relatively short).<\/p>\n<p>The NT also follows a generally logical arrangement. It begins with the four Gospels, which describe the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ and his training of disciples to carry on his work after his ascension. The book of Acts continues the narrative where the Gospels end and details the founding of the church and its spread through Mediterranean lands. In the latter part of the book the spotlight focuses on the apostle Paul and his church planting activities. Next come letters Paul addressed to churches he founded or to young ministers he tried to encourage. Following the Pauline Epistles come a group commonly called the General Epistles. The last book, Revelation, is an apocalyptic work.<\/p>\n<p>The OT was written almost entirely in Hebrew with a few isolated passages in Aramaic in the latter books. If one accepts the view that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT (the position the Scripture itself takes), the earliest books of the OT were written by about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> (provided one accepts the early date proposed for the exodus). If the last book written was Malachi (before 400 <span>BC<\/span>), composition took place during 1,000 years of time. All the writers (some 30 in number) were Jews: prophets, judges, kings, and other leaders in Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The NT was probably written entirely in Greek. If James was the first to write a NT book before the middle of the first century, and if John was the last (composing Revelation about <span>AD<\/span> 90), the NT was written during a 50-year period in the latter half of the first century. All the writers (probably nine) were Jews, with the exception of Luke (writer of Luke and Acts), and they came from a variety of walks of life: fishermen, doctor, tax collector, and religious leaders.<\/p>\n<p>In spite of great diversity of authorship in the OT and NT, and composition spanning over 1,500 years, there is remarkable unity in the total thrust. Christians believe that God must have been superintending the production of a divine-human book that would properly present his message to humankind.<\/p>\n<p>The OT and NT are component parts of one divine revelation. The OT describes man and woman in the first paradise on the old earth; the NT concludes with a vision of the new heaven and new earth. The OT sees humankind as fallen from a sinless condition and separated from God; the NT views believers as restored to favor through the sacrifice of Christ. The OT predicts a coming Redeemer who will rescue men and women from eternal condemnation; the NT reveals the Christ who brought salvation. In most of the OT the spotlight focuses on a sacrificial system in which the blood of animals provided a temporary handling of the sin problem; in the New, Christ appeared as the one who came to put an end to all sacrifice—to be himself the supreme sacrifice. In the OT, numerous predictions foretold a coming Messiah who would save his people; in the New, scores of passages detail how those prophecies were minutely fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ: the “son of Abraham” and the “son of David” (Mt 1:1). As Augustine said more than 1,500 years ago, “The New is in the Old contained; the Old is in the New explained.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheAuthorityoftheBible\">The Authority of the Bible<\/p>\n<p>Judge of men and nations, the self-revealed God wields unlimited authority and power. All creaturely authority and power is derived from that of God. As the sovereign Creator of all, the God of the Bible wills and has the right to be obeyed. The power God bestows is a divine trust, a stewardship. God’s creatures are morally accountable for their use or misuse of it. In fallen human society God wills civil government for the promotion of justice and order. He approves an ordering of authoritative and creative relationships in the home by stipulating certain responsibilities of husbands, wives, and children. He wills a pattern of priorities for the church as well: Jesus Christ the head, prophets and apostles through whom redemptive revelation came, and so on. The inspired Scriptures, revealing God’s transcendent will in objective written form, are the rule of faith and conduct through which Christ exercises his divine authority in the lives of Christians.<\/p>\n<p>Revolt against particular authorities has in our time widened into a revolt against all transcendent and external authority. The widespread questioning of authority is condoned and promoted in many academic circles. Philosophers with a radically secular outlook have affirmed that God and the supernatural are mythical conceptions, that natural processes and events comprise the only ultimate reality. All existence is said to be temporal and changing, all beliefs and ideals are declared to be relative to the age and culture in which they appear. Biblical religion, therefore, like all other, is asserted to be merely a cultural phenomenon. The Bible’s claim to divine authority is dismissed by such thinkers; transcendent revelation, fixed truths, and unchanging commandments are set aside as pious fictions.<\/p>\n<p>In the name of man’s supposed “coming of age,” radical secularism champions human autonomy and creative individuality. Man is his own lord and the inventor of his own ideals and values, it is said. He lives in a supposedly purposeless universe that has itself presumably been engendered by a cosmic accident. Therefore, human beings are declared to be wholly free to impose upon nature and history whatever moral criteria they prefer. In such a view, to insist on divinely given truths and values, on transcendent principles, would be to repress self-fulfillment and retard creative personal development. Hence, the radically secular view goes beyond opposing particular external authorities whose claims are considered arbitrary or immoral; radical secularism is aggressively hostile to all external and objective authority, viewing it as intrinsically restrictive of the autonomous human spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Any reader of the Bible recognizes rejection of divine authority and of a definitive revelation of what is right and good as an age-old phenomenon. It is not at all peculiar to contemporary man to “come of age”; it was found already in Eden. Adam and Eve revolted against the will of God in pursuit of individual preference and self-interest. But their revolt was recognized to be sin, not rationalized as philosophical <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> at the frontiers of evolutionary advance.<\/p>\n<p>If one takes a strictly developmental view, which considers all reality contingent and changing, what basis remains for humanity’s decisively creative role in the universe? How could a purposeless cosmos cater to individual self-fulfillment? Only the biblical alternative of the Creator-Redeemer God, who fashioned human beings for moral obedience and a high spiritual destiny, truly preserves the permanent, universal dignity of the human species. The Bible does so, however, by a demanding call for personal spiritual decision. The Bible sets forth man’s superiority to the animals, his high dignity (“a little lower than God,” Ps 8:5, <span>nasb<\/span>) because of the divine rational and moral image that he bears by creation. In the context of universal human involvement in Adamic sin, the Bible utters a merciful divine call to redemptive renewal through the mediatorial person and work of Christ. Fallen humanity is invited to experience the Holy Spirit’s renewing work, to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and to anticipate a final destiny in the eternal presence of the God of justice and justification.<\/p>\n<p>Contemporary rejection of biblical tenets does not rest on any logical demonstration that the case for biblical theism is false; it turns rather on a subjective preference for alternative views of “the good life.”<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is not the only significant reminder that human beings stand daily in responsible relationship to the sovereign God. The Creator reveals his authority in the cosmos, in history, and in inner conscience, a disclosure of the living God that penetrates into the mind of every human being (Rom 1:18-20; 2:12-15). Rebellious suppression of that “general divine revelation” does not succeed in wholly suspending a fearsome sense of final divine accountability (1:32). Yet it is the Bible as “special revelation” that most clearly confronts our spiritually rebellious race with the reality and authority of God. In the Scriptures, the character and will of God, the meaning of human existence, the nature of the spiritual realm, and the purposes of God for human beings in all ages are stated in propositionally intelligible form that all can understand. The Bible publishes in objective form the criteria by which God judges individuals and nations, and the means of moral recovery and restoration to personal fellowship with him.<\/p>\n<p>Regard for the Bible is therefore decisive for the course of Western culture and in the long run for human civilization generally. Intelligible divine revelation, the basis for belief in the sovereign authority of the Creator-Redeemer God over all human life, rests on the reliability of what Scripture says about God and his purposes. Modern naturalism impugns the authority of the Bible and assails the claim that the Bible is the Word of God written, that is, a transcendently given revelation of the mind and will of God in objective literary form. Scriptural authority is the storm center both in the controversy over revealed religion and in the modern conflict over civilizational values.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblesViewofItself\">The Bible’s View of Itself<\/p>\n<p>The intelligible nature of divine revelation—the presupposition that God’s will is made known in the form of valid truths—is the central presupposition of the authority of the Bible. Much recent neo-Protestant theology demeaned the traditional evangelical emphasis as doctrinaire and static. It insisted instead that the authority of Scripture is to be experienced internally as a witness to divine grace engendering faith and obedience, thus disowning its objective character as universally valid truth. Somewhat inconsistently, almost all neo-Protestant theologians have appealed to the record to support cognitively whatever fragments of the whole seem to coincide with their divergent views, even though they disavow the Bible as a specially revealed corpus of authoritative divine teaching. If God’s revelational disclosure to chosen prophets and apostles is to be considered meaningful and true, it must be given not merely in isolated concepts capable of diverse meanings but in sentences or propositions. A proposition—that is, a subject, predicate, and connecting verb (or “copula”)—constitutes the minimal logical unit of intelligible communication. The OT prophetic formula “Thus saith the Lord” characteristically introduced propositionally disclosed truth. Jesus Christ employed the distinctive formula “But I say unto you” to introduce logically formed sentences that he represented as the veritable word or doctrine of God.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible is authoritative because it is divinely authorized; in its own terms, “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tm 3:16, <span>niv<\/span>). According to this passage, the whole OT (or any element of it) is divinely inspired. Extension of the same claim to the NT is not expressly stated, but it is not merely implied. The New Testament contains indications that its content was to be viewed, and was in fact viewed, as no less authoritative than the Old. The apostle Paul’s writings are catalogued with “other Scriptures” (2 Pt 3:15-16). Under the heading of “Scripture,” 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 alongside Deuteronomy 25:4 (cf. 1 Cor 9:9). The book of Revelation, moreover, claims divine origin (1:1-3) and employs the term “prophecy” in the OT sense (22:9-10, 18). The apostles did not distinguish their spoken and written teaching but expressly declared their inspired proclamation to be the word of God (1 Cor 4:1; 2 Cor 5:20; 1 Thes 2:13).<\/p>\n<p>The Bible remains the most extensively printed, most widely translated, and most frequently read book in the world. Its words have been treasured in the hearts of multitudes like none other’s. All who have received its gifts of wisdom and promises of new life and power were at first strangers to its redemptive message, and many were hostile to its teaching and spiritual demands. In all generations its power to challenge persons of all races and lands has been demonstrated. Those who cherish the Book because it sustains future hope, brings meaning and power to the present, and correlates a misused past with the forgiving grace of God would not long experience such inner rewards if Scripture were not known to them as the authoritative, divinely revealed truth. To the Christian, Scripture is the Word of God given in the objective form of propositional truths through divinely inspired prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit is the giver of faith through that word.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>Several other major articles on the Bible follow:<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Canon of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Inspiration of the<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (Old Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Manuscripts and Text of the (New Testament)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (Ancient)<\/p>\n<p>• Bible, Versions of the (English)<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE* Derived from the Greek biblia (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century BC spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century BC) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42)...","summary_en":"BIBLE* Derived from the Greek biblia (“books”), which, though plural, came to be used as a singular noun and to stand for the collection of books known as the Scriptures. The idea of a collection of holy writings developed early in Hebrew-Christian thought. Daniel in the sixth century BC spoke of a prophetic writing as “the books” (Dn 9:2). The writer of 1 Maccabees (second century BC) referred to the OT as “the holy books” (12:9). Jesus referred to the OT books as “the scriptures” (Mt 21:42)...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":4667,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible*, Canon","title_en":"of the Bible*, Canon","content_ro":"<h3>BIBLE*, C<span>anon of the<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer form a canon of Greek literature, so the NT books became the canon of Christian literature. The criteria for selecting the books in the Jewish canon (the OT) are not known but clearly had to do with their worth in the ongoing life and religion of the worshiping nation. The criteria of the selection of NT books revolved around their “apostolicity,” according to early church writers. Like those of the OT, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living. The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, that took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today, although some of the Eastern churches have a NT that is slightly smaller than that accepted in the West. Judaism, as well as Christianity as a whole, believes that the Spirit of God was operative in some providential way in the production and preservation of his Word.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheOldTestament\">Canon of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their collection of Scriptures the TANAK—an acronym formed from the first letters of <em>Torah<\/em> (Law), <em>Nevi<\/em><em>’<\/em><em>im<\/em> (Prophets), and <em>Kethubim<\/em> (Writings). In Luke 24:44 (<span>niv<\/span>), these are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible). Christians called their collection of writings the New Testament, or covenant, the latter term being a designation earlier used of the agreement God made with Abraham and the patriarchs, which was repeated by Christ to his apostles (Mt 26:28). Christians in the first century considered their new covenant from Christ (1 Cor 11:25) to be a continuation of the one made earlier with the patriarchs (Eph 2:12), spoken of by the prophets (Jer 31:31-34), and which was therefore called a former covenant (Heb 8:7-13; 9:1, 15-22) or in later centuries the OT. The terms “Old” and “New” do not appear in the apostolic fathers of the first and second century or in the apologists of the early- to mid-second century, but they do appear in the latter half of the second century in Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogues<\/em> 11:2), Irenaeus (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 4.9.1), and Clement of Alexandria (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1:5). In these authors the expression referred more to the covenant itself than to the books containing it, though the transfer was eventually made. The term “canon” was not used in the OT or NT to refer to the Jewish Scriptures. The idea of limitation inherent in the word was not appropriate to the nature of religious authority in Jewish religion during the thousand years when the OT books were being written. Only the Torah was conceived as incapable of being added to or taken from (Dt 4:2). Jewish religion existed for a millennium, from Moses to Malachi, without a closed canon, i.e., an exclusive list of authoritative books. Never in their history did the people of the OT have the entire 39 books of the OT. When their canon was closed is not known. Although some questions were being asked about religious authority by rabbis at Jamnia 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, we have our first list of 39 books produced by Melito of Sardis around <span>AD<\/span> 170. That list included no books written after the time of Malachi, unless one is disposed to date Daniel to the second century. The Prophets and the Writings were always considered secondary to the Law. Their composition and collection was a process rather than an event in the life of the people of Israel and functioned largely as a record of the nation’s response to the Law, which was so sacred that it was kept (according to rabbinical tradition: Babylonian Talmud, <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 14a; cf. also <em>Cairo Damascus Document<\/em> 5.2) in the ark of the covenant that stood in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy 31:26, however, the Levites were commanded by Moses merely to put the Book of the Law beside the ark. Nevertheless, its very presence in the Holy of Holies establishes its uniqueness in relation to other OT books.<\/p>\n\n<p>The 39 books of the modern OT were originally divided into only 24, according to the uniform testimony of early Hebrew tradition. The Talmud, rabbinic literature, and probably 4 Esdras testify to this arrangement that included five books of the Law, eight Prophets, and eleven Writings (Greek—Hagiographa). Modern Hebrew Bibles reflect this tripartite arrangement that was used in the first three printed editions (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491–1493; Brescia, 1492–1494). The Law contained the Pentateuch in our familiar order, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The eight Prophets were Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), Kings (1 and 2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (all 12), which were considered as one book and arranged in the same order as our English Bibles. The eleven books of Writings contained three of poetry (Ps, Prv, Jb), the Five Scrolls (Sg, Ru, Lam, Eccl, Est), which were read at the important feasts and arranged in the chronological order of their observance, and three of narrative or historical (Dn, Ezr-Neh, 1 and 2 Chr).<\/p>\n<p>Apart from authentic Jewish tradition, efforts were made to divide the books into 21, combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Josephus was the first to do so, in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, but he was influenced by the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Origen observed in the early third century that this arrangement also corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as did Athanasius in the fourth, and others, including Jerome. It was dubiously concluded that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible had been divinely ordained to agree with the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet! Church fathers added their support to this coincidence, which became providence to them. All such efforts, however, are of Greek origin and have no support in Hebrew tradition.<\/p>\n<p>The oldest extant manuscripts of the complete OT in Hebrew are the Masoretic Texts, which are no earlier than the eighth century <span>AD<\/span>. Only manuscripts of individual books have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic scribes apparently laid down no rules about arrangement of books because there is no uniform order of the Latter Prophets or the Writings in early Hebrew manuscripts. Nor is the situation any different in ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew. Great diversity exists in the order of books in all three of our oldest manuscripts—Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All the early Christian authors who profess to give the order and contents of the Hebrew Bible but who do not reflect the Hebrew tripartite division are clearly dependent on the Alexandrian order reflected in these Greek editions, rather than on the Hebrew Bible. Modern Protestant Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate and the content of the Hebrew. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint (Greek translation) contained the Apocrypha, which was never accepted by the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its English translations because of the influence of the Vulgate on Catholic tradition. It is considered deuterocanonical.<\/p>\n<p>Even though no uniformity of order was maintained, the Alexandrian order, reflected in the Greek manuscripts, generally arranged books according to their subject matter—narrative, history, poetry, and prophecy, with the apocryphal books appropriately interspersed into these categories. The Hebrew division was totally ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Early Hebrew Bibles divided the text into small paragraphs and larger sections somewhat akin to our paragraphs. These were indicated by spaces left between them—three letters between the small sections and nine letters between the larger ones. The number of sections is not the same in all manuscripts. Jesus probably referred to such sections in his comment concerning the “passage about the bush” (Mk 12:26). Later, liturgical needs led to further divisions of the text for the complete reading of the Law in Babylonian synagogues in one year (54 sections) and in Palestinian synagogues in three years (154 sections). These are reflected in the lectionary cycles marked in some early Hebrew Bibles.<\/p>\n<p>The division of the text into modern chapters, done in the 13th century (c. 1228) for the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, was applied to the Hebrew Bible in 1518 (Bomberg Edition), but the numbers were not given to the chapters until 1571 in the text of Montanus, a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The verses were introduced in Bomberg’s Great Bible of 1547–48 in which every fifth verse was designated by a Hebrew numeral 1, 5, 10, and so on. Verses were inserted into the Latin Vulgate in 1555 in the small octavo edition of Stephanus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheNewTestament\">Canon of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the OT. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both Testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both OT and NT is based solidly upon that twofold premise.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the OT canon than of the NT canon. We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the NT content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 14:26; 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the NT. It is identical to that of the OT, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of OT times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the NT epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at first. Conversely, that all 27 books of the now universally received NT were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the NT Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>From available information, the gradual process that led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the 27 books comprising the NT takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then.<\/p>\n<p>Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the NT than the OT, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the NT canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the NT, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the NT books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze <em>how<\/em> and <em>why<\/em> our early Christian forebears settled upon the 27 books in our NT.<\/p>\n<p>The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and a half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:<\/p>\n<p>1. First Century<\/p>\n<li>2. First Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>3. Second Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>4. Third Century<\/li>\n<li>5. Fourth Century<\/li>\n<p>Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the churches. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period, they held a recognized place alongside the OT as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century <span>AD<\/span>, our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process that was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached that indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals that produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Period One: First Century<\/h5>\n<p>The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical NT writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his First Letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the NT to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the brothers and sisters” (1 Thes 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col 4:16; Rv 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Dt 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Lk 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between OT Scripture and a NT Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 95, Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Two: First Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest NT manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about <span>AD<\/span> 125, within 30 to 35 years of his death. There is evidence that within 30 years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another 50 years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.<\/p>\n<p>The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the NT in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are not clearly attested.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistles of Ignatius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.<\/p>\n<p>It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around <span>AD<\/span> 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical NT sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome at this period there was a NT compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire OT, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of this period, Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the OT prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the NT was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from NT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Three: Second Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with firstgeneration Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the NT on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The word,” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the <em>Diatessaron,<\/em> attesting to the equal status they had in the church by <span>AD<\/span> 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the <em>Muratorian Canon.<\/em> An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.<\/p>\n<p>Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by <span>AD<\/span> 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The NT canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Four: Third Century<\/h5>\n<p>The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (<span>AD<\/span> 185– 254). A prodigious scholar and interpreter, he made critical studies of the NT text (alongside his work on the <em>Hexapla<\/em>) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the NT, emphasizing their inspiration by God.<\/p>\n<p>Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the Letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about certain books as at its beginning.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Five: Fourth Century<\/h5>\n<p>Early in this period, the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (<span>AD<\/span> 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> (3.3–25). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century: (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”<\/p>\n<p>It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the NT canon finds full and final declaration. In his <em>Festal Letter<\/em> for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document that specifies our 27 books without qualification. At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (<span>AD<\/span> 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This, too, lists the 27 books of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the NT books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard that gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the 27 books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.<\/p>\n<h5>Principles and Factors Determining the Canon<\/h5>\n<p>By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether OT or NT, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:29-30; Eph 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When all things were being reexamined in the Protestant Reformation, some of the Reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of Reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.<\/p>\n<p>Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (Jn 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (<span>tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hence, the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter, and Luke’s with Paul, gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books that were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.<\/p>\n<p>The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the OT Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the one who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated Word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BIBLE*, C<span>anon of the<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer form a canon of Greek literature, so the NT books became the canon of Christian literature. The criteria for selecting the books in the Jewish canon (the OT) are not known but clearly had to do with their worth in the ongoing life and religion of the worshiping nation. The criteria of the selection of NT books revolved around their “apostolicity,” according to early church writers. Like those of the OT, these books were collected and preserved by local churches in the continuing process of their worship and need for authoritative guidance for Christian living. The formation of the canon was a process, rather than an event, that took several hundred years to reach finality in all parts of the Roman Empire. Local canons were the basis for comparison, and out of them eventually emerged the general canon that exists in Christendom today, although some of the Eastern churches have a NT that is slightly smaller than that accepted in the West. Judaism, as well as Christianity as a whole, believes that the Spirit of God was operative in some providential way in the production and preservation of his Word.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheOldTestament\">Canon of the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The Old Testament is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their collection of Scriptures the TANAK—an acronym formed from the first letters of <em>Torah<\/em> (Law), <em>Nevi<\/em><em>’<\/em><em>im<\/em> (Prophets), and <em>Kethubim<\/em> (Writings). In Luke 24:44 (<span>niv<\/span>), these are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible). Christians called their collection of writings the New Testament, or covenant, the latter term being a designation earlier used of the agreement God made with Abraham and the patriarchs, which was repeated by Christ to his apostles (Mt 26:28). Christians in the first century considered their new covenant from Christ (1 Cor 11:25) to be a continuation of the one made earlier with the patriarchs (Eph 2:12), spoken of by the prophets (Jer 31:31-34), and which was therefore called a former covenant (Heb 8:7-13; 9:1, 15-22) or in later centuries the OT. The terms “Old” and “New” do not appear in the apostolic fathers of the first and second century or in the apologists of the early- to mid-second century, but they do appear in the latter half of the second century in Justin Martyr (<em>Dialogues<\/em> 11:2), Irenaeus (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 4.9.1), and Clement of Alexandria (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1:5). In these authors the expression referred more to the covenant itself than to the books containing it, though the transfer was eventually made. The term “canon” was not used in the OT or NT to refer to the Jewish Scriptures. The idea of limitation inherent in the word was not appropriate to the nature of religious authority in Jewish religion during the thousand years when the OT books were being written. Only the Torah was conceived as incapable of being added to or taken from (Dt 4:2). Jewish religion existed for a millennium, from Moses to Malachi, without a closed canon, i.e., an exclusive list of authoritative books. Never in their history did the people of the OT have the entire 39 books of the OT. When their canon was closed is not known. Although some questions were being asked about religious authority by rabbis at Jamnia 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70, we have our first list of 39 books produced by Melito of Sardis around <span>AD<\/span> 170. That list included no books written after the time of Malachi, unless one is disposed to date Daniel to the second century. The Prophets and the Writings were always considered secondary to the Law. Their composition and collection was a process rather than an event in the life of the people of Israel and functioned largely as a record of the nation’s response to the Law, which was so sacred that it was kept (according to rabbinical tradition: Babylonian Talmud, <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 14a; cf. also <em>Cairo Damascus Document<\/em> 5.2) in the ark of the covenant that stood in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle. In Deuteronomy 31:26, however, the Levites were commanded by Moses merely to put the Book of the Law beside the ark. Nevertheless, its very presence in the Holy of Holies establishes its uniqueness in relation to other OT books.<\/p>\n\n<p>The 39 books of the modern OT were originally divided into only 24, according to the uniform testimony of early Hebrew tradition. The Talmud, rabbinic literature, and probably 4 Esdras testify to this arrangement that included five books of the Law, eight Prophets, and eleven Writings (Greek—Hagiographa). Modern Hebrew Bibles reflect this tripartite arrangement that was used in the first three printed editions (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491–1493; Brescia, 1492–1494). The Law contained the Pentateuch in our familiar order, Genesis to Deuteronomy. The eight Prophets were Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 and 2), Kings (1 and 2), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets (all 12), which were considered as one book and arranged in the same order as our English Bibles. The eleven books of Writings contained three of poetry (Ps, Prv, Jb), the Five Scrolls (Sg, Ru, Lam, Eccl, Est), which were read at the important feasts and arranged in the chronological order of their observance, and three of narrative or historical (Dn, Ezr-Neh, 1 and 2 Chr).<\/p>\n<p>Apart from authentic Jewish tradition, efforts were made to divide the books into 21, combining Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. Josephus was the first to do so, in the first century <span>AD<\/span>, but he was influenced by the Greek OT, the Septuagint. Origen observed in the early third century that this arrangement also corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, as did Athanasius in the fourth, and others, including Jerome. It was dubiously concluded that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible had been divinely ordained to agree with the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet! Church fathers added their support to this coincidence, which became providence to them. All such efforts, however, are of Greek origin and have no support in Hebrew tradition.<\/p>\n<p>The oldest extant manuscripts of the complete OT in Hebrew are the Masoretic Texts, which are no earlier than the eighth century <span>AD<\/span>. Only manuscripts of individual books have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Masoretic scribes apparently laid down no rules about arrangement of books because there is no uniform order of the Latter Prophets or the Writings in early Hebrew manuscripts. Nor is the situation any different in ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew. Great diversity exists in the order of books in all three of our oldest manuscripts—Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. All the early Christian authors who profess to give the order and contents of the Hebrew Bible but who do not reflect the Hebrew tripartite division are clearly dependent on the Alexandrian order reflected in these Greek editions, rather than on the Hebrew Bible. Modern Protestant Bibles follow the order of the Latin Vulgate and the content of the Hebrew. Both the Vulgate and the Septuagint (Greek translation) contained the Apocrypha, which was never accepted by the Jews. The Roman Catholic Church includes the Apocrypha in its English translations because of the influence of the Vulgate on Catholic tradition. It is considered deuterocanonical.<\/p>\n<p>Even though no uniformity of order was maintained, the Alexandrian order, reflected in the Greek manuscripts, generally arranged books according to their subject matter—narrative, history, poetry, and prophecy, with the apocryphal books appropriately interspersed into these categories. The Hebrew division was totally ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Early Hebrew Bibles divided the text into small paragraphs and larger sections somewhat akin to our paragraphs. These were indicated by spaces left between them—three letters between the small sections and nine letters between the larger ones. The number of sections is not the same in all manuscripts. Jesus probably referred to such sections in his comment concerning the “passage about the bush” (Mk 12:26). Later, liturgical needs led to further divisions of the text for the complete reading of the Law in Babylonian synagogues in one year (54 sections) and in Palestinian synagogues in three years (154 sections). These are reflected in the lectionary cycles marked in some early Hebrew Bibles.<\/p>\n<p>The division of the text into modern chapters, done in the 13th century (c. 1228) for the Latin Vulgate by Stephen Langton, was applied to the Hebrew Bible in 1518 (Bomberg Edition), but the numbers were not given to the chapters until 1571 in the text of Montanus, a Hebrew Bible with Latin interlinear translation. The verses were introduced in Bomberg’s Great Bible of 1547–48 in which every fifth verse was designated by a Hebrew numeral 1, 5, 10, and so on. Verses were inserted into the Latin Vulgate in 1555 in the small octavo edition of Stephanus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CanonoftheNewTestament\">Canon of the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The NT was written within the period of half a century, several hundred years after the completion of the OT. Both halves of that statement would be questioned by modern critics, who would extend the time span for completion of both Testaments. The writer of this survey is confident of its truthfulness to historic fact, however, and the approach taken to canonization of both OT and NT is based solidly upon that twofold premise.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, we possess far higher certification of the OT canon than of the NT canon. We refer to the fact of our Lord’s own imprimatur by way of his use of the Hebrew Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Yet there is a sense in which Jesus Christ did establish the NT content or canon as well, by way of anticipation. It was he who promised, “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” and “he will guide you into all truth” (Jn 14:26; 16:13, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n\n<p>From this we can derive, in turn, the basic principle of canonicity for the NT. It is identical to that of the OT, since it narrows down to a matter of divine inspiration. Whether we think of the prophets of OT times or the apostles and their God-given associates of the New, the recognition at the very time of their writing that they were authentic spokesmen for God is what determines the intrinsic canonicity of their writing. It is altogether God’s Word only if it is God-breathed. We can be assured that the books under question were received by the church of the apostolic age precisely when they had been certified by an apostle as being thus inspired. The apparent variation, relative to geographic area, in acknowledgment of some of the NT epistles may well reflect the simple fact that this attestation was by its very nature localized at first. Conversely, that all 27 books of the now universally received NT were ultimately agreed upon is evidence that proper attestation was indeed confirmed after rigorous investigation.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the “New Testament.” That title had appeared earlier (c. 190) in a composition against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the NT Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the OT.<\/p>\n<p>From available information, the gradual process that led to full and formal public recognition of a fixed canon of the 27 books comprising the NT takes us down into the fourth century of our era. This does not necessarily mean that these Scriptures were lacking recognition in their entirety before that time, but that a need for officially defining the canon was not pressing until then.<\/p>\n<p>Though a much shorter period of time was involved in the writing of the NT than the OT, the geographic range of its origin is far wider. This circumstance alone is sufficient to account for a lack of spontaneous or simultaneous recognition of the precise extent of the NT canon. Because of the geographic isolation of the various recipients of portions of the NT, there was bound to be some lag and uncertainty from one region to another in the acknowledgment of some of the books.<\/p>\n<p>In order to appreciate just what did transpire in the process of canonization of the NT books, we must review the facts available to us. This will enable us to analyze <em>how<\/em> and <em>why<\/em> our early Christian forebears settled upon the 27 books in our NT.<\/p>\n<p>The historic process was a gradual and continuous one, but it will help us understand it if we subdivide the nearly three and a half centuries involved into shorter periods of time. Some speak of three major stages toward canonization. This implies, without justification, that there are readily discernible steps along the way. Others simply present a long list of the names of persons and documents involved. Such a list makes it difficult to sense any motion at all. A somewhat arbitrary breakdown into five periods will be made here, with the reminder that the spreading of the knowledge of sacred literature and the deepening consensus as to its authenticity as inspired Scripture continued uninterruptedly. The periods are:<\/p>\n<p>1. First Century<\/p>\n<li>2. First Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>3. Second Half of Second Century<\/li>\n<li>4. Third Century<\/li>\n<li>5. Fourth Century<\/li>\n<p>Again, without meaning to imply that these are clear-cut stages, it will be helpful to notice the major trends observable in each of the periods just identified. In the first period, of course, the various books were written, but they also began to be copied and disseminated among the churches. In the second, as they became more widely known and cherished for their contents, they began to be cited as authoritative. By the end of the third period, they held a recognized place alongside the OT as “Scripture,” and they began to be both translated into regional languages and made the subject of commentaries. During the third century <span>AD<\/span>, our fourth period, the collecting of books into a whole “New Testament” was underway, together with a sifting process that was separating them from other Christian literature. The final, or fifth, period finds the church fathers of the fourth century stating that conclusions regarding the canon have been reached that indicate acceptance by the whole church. Thus, in the most strict and formal sense of the word, the canon had become fixed. It remains to list in greater detail the forces and individuals that produced the written sources witnessing to this remarkable process through which, by God’s providence, we have inherited our NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Period One: First Century<\/h5>\n<p>The principle determining recognition of the authority of the canonical NT writings was established within the content of those writings themselves. There are repeated exhortations for public reading of the apostolic communications. At the close of his First Letter to the Thessalonians, possibly the first book of the NT to be written, Paul says, “I command you in the name of the Lord to read this letter to all the brothers and sisters” (1 Thes 5:27, <span>nlt<\/span>). Earlier in the same letter Paul commends their ready acceptance of his spoken word as “the word of God” (2:13), and in 1 Corinthians 14:37 he speaks similarly of his “writings,” insisting that his message be recognized as a commandment from the Lord himself. (See also Col 4:16; Rv 1:3.) In 2 Peter 3:15-16 Paul’s letters are included with “the other Scriptures.” Since Peter’s is a general letter, widespread knowledge of Paul’s letters is thereby implied. Highly indicative also is Paul’s usage in 1 Timothy 5:18. He follows up the formula “the Scriptures say” by a combined quotation about not muzzling an ox (Dt 25:4) and “the worker deserves his wages” (cf. Lk 10:7). Thus, an equivalence is implied between OT Scripture and a NT Gospel.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 95, Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians in Corinth using a free rendering of material from Matthew and Luke. He seems to be strongly influenced by Hebrews and is obviously familiar with Romans and Corinthians. There are also reflections of Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Two: First Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest NT manuscripts yet discovered, a fragment of John from Egypt known as the John Rylands papyrus, demonstrates how the writings of the apostle John were revered and copied by about <span>AD<\/span> 125, within 30 to 35 years of his death. There is evidence that within 30 years of the apostle’s death all the Gospels and Pauline letters were known and used in all those centers from which any evidence has come down to us. It is true that some of the smaller letters were being questioned as to their authority in some quarters for perhaps another 50 years, but this was due only to uncertainty about their authorship in those particular locales. This demonstrates that acceptance was not being imposed by the actions of councils but was rather happening spontaneously through a normal response on the part of those who had learned the facts about authorship. In those places where the churches were uncertain about the authorship or apostolic approval of certain books, acceptance was slower.<\/p>\n<p>The first three outstanding church fathers, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, used the bulk of the material of the NT in a revealingly casual manner—authenticated Scriptures were being accepted as authoritative without argument. In the writings of these men only Mark (which closely parallels the material of Matthew), 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude are not clearly attested.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistles of Ignatius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 115) have correspondences in several places with the Gospels and seem to incorporate language from a number of the Pauline letters. The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve), perhaps even earlier, makes references to a written Gospel. Most important is the fact that Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius all draw a clear distinction between their own and the inspired, authoritative apostolic writings.<\/p>\n<p>It is in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 130) that we first find the formula “it is written” (4:14) used in reference to a NT book (Mt 22:14). But even before this, Polycarp, who had personal acquaintance with eyewitnesses of our Lord’s ministry, used a combined OT and NT quotation. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 4:26, where the apostle quotes Psalm 4:4 and makes an addition, Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians introduces the reference by “as it is said in these Scriptures” (12:4). Then Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (c. 130–140), in a work preserved for us by Eusebius, mentions by name the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and his use of them as the basis of exposition indicates his acceptance of them as canonical. Also around <span>AD<\/span> 140, the recently discovered Gospel of Truth (a Gnostic-oriented work probably authored by Valentinius) makes an important contribution. Its use of canonical NT sources, treating them as authoritative, is comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion that in Rome at this period there was a NT compilation in existence corresponding very closely to our own. Citations are made from the Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>The heretic Marcion, by defining a limited canon of his own (c. 140), in effect hastened the day when the orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue. Rejecting the entire OT, Marcion settled for Luke’s Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 and 2 as too Jewish) and Paul’s letters (except for the pastoral ones). Interestingly, especially in the light of Colossians 4:16, he substitutes the name “Laodiceans” for Ephesians.<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of this period, Justin Martyr, in describing the worship services of the early church, puts the apostolic writings on a par with those of the OT prophets. He states that the voice which spoke through the apostles of Christ in the NT was the same as that which spoke through the prophets—the voice of God—and the same voice that Abraham heard, responding in faith and obedience. Justin was also free in his use of “it is written” with quotations from NT Scriptures.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Three: Second Half of Second Century<\/h5>\n<p>Irenaeus had been privileged to begin his Christian training under Polycarp, a disciple of apostles. Then, as a presbyter in Lyons, he had association with Bishop Pothinus, whose own background also included contact with firstgeneration Christians. Irenaeus quotes from almost all the NT on the basis of its authority and asserts that the apostles were endowed with power from on high. They were, he says, “fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect knowledge . . . having indeed all in equal measure and each one singly the Gospel of God” (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.3). Irenaeus gives reasons why there should be four Gospels. “The word,” he says, “gave us the Gospel in a fourfold shape, but held together by one Spirit.” In addition to the Gospels, he makes reference also to Acts, all the letters of Paul except Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the book of Revelation.<\/p>\n<p>Tatian, pupil of Justin Martyr, made a harmony of the four Gospels, the <em>Diatessaron,<\/em> attesting to the equal status they had in the church by <span>AD<\/span> 170. Other “gospels” had come into existence by then, but he recognized only the four. Also dating from about 170 was the <em>Muratorian Canon.<\/em> An eighth-century copy of this document was discovered and published in 1740 by librarian L. A. Muratori. The manuscript is mutilated at both ends, but the remaining text makes it evident that Matthew and Mark were included in the now missing part. The fragment begins with Luke and John, cites Acts, 13 Pauline letters, 1 and 2 John, Jude, and Revelation. There follows a statement, “We accept only the Apocalypse of John and Peter, although some of us do not want it [Apocalypse of Peter is 2 Peter?] to be read in the Church.” The list goes on to reject by name various heretical leaders and their writings.<\/p>\n<p>Translated versions existed by this period. In the form of Syriac and Old Latin translations we secure, by <span>AD<\/span> 170, adequate witness from the extreme eastern and western branches of the church, as we might well expect from the other evidence in hand. The NT canon is represented with no additions and the omission of only one book, 2 Peter.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Four: Third Century<\/h5>\n<p>The outstanding Christian name of the third century is that of Origen (<span>AD<\/span> 185– 254). A prodigious scholar and interpreter, he made critical studies of the NT text (alongside his work on the <em>Hexapla<\/em>) and wrote commentaries and homilies on most of the books of the NT, emphasizing their inspiration by God.<\/p>\n<p>Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil of Origen, indicates that while the Western church accepted the book of Revelation from the first, its position in the East was variable. In the case of the Letter to the Hebrews, the situation was reversed. It proved to be more insecure in the West than in the East. When it comes to other contested books (note, incidently, that all in that category have the hindmost position in our present Bibles—Hebrews to Revelation), among the so-called “Catholic Epistles” Dionysius supports James and 2 and 3 John but not 2 Peter or Jude. In other words, even at the end of the third century there was the same lack of finality about certain books as at its beginning.<\/p>\n<h5>Period Five: Fourth Century<\/h5>\n<p>Early in this period, the picture begins to clarify. Eusebius (<span>AD<\/span> 270–340, bishop of Caesarea before 315), the great church historian, sets forth his estimate of the canon in his <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em> (3.3–25). Herein he makes a straightforward statement on the status of the canon in the early part of the fourth century: (1) Universally agreed upon as canonical were the four Gospels, Acts, letters of Paul (including Hebrews, with question about his authorship), 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. (2) Admitted by a majority, including Eusebius himself, but disputed by some were James, 2 Peter (the most strongly contested), 2 and 3 John, and Jude. (3) The Acts of Paul, the Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas were classified “spurious,” and still other writings were listed as “heretical and absurd.”<\/p>\n<p>It is in the latter half of the fourth century, however, that the NT canon finds full and final declaration. In his <em>Festal Letter<\/em> for Easter, 367, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria included information designed to eliminate once and for all the use of certain apocryphal books. This letter, with its admonition, “Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away,” gives us the earliest extant document that specifies our 27 books without qualification. At the close of the century, the Council of Carthage (<span>AD<\/span> 397) decreed that “aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the Name of Divine Scriptures.” This, too, lists the 27 books of the NT.<\/p>\n<p>The sudden advance of Christianity under Emperor Constantine (Edict of Milan, 313) had a great deal to do with the reception of all the NT books in the East. When he assigned Eusebius the task of preparing “fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures,” the historian, fully aware of which were the sacred books for which many believers had been willing to lay down their very lives, in effect established the standard that gave recognition to all of the once-doubtful books. In the West, of course, Jerome and Augustine were the leaders who exercised a determinitive influence. Publication of the 27 books in the Vulgate version virtually settled the matter.<\/p>\n<h5>Principles and Factors Determining the Canon<\/h5>\n<p>By its very nature, Holy Scripture, whether OT or NT, is a production given of God, not the work of human creation. The key to canonicity is divine inspiration. Therefore, the method of determination is not one of selection from a number of possible candidates (there are no other candidates, in actuality) but one of reception of authentic material and its consequent recognition by an ever-widening circle as the facts of its origin become known.<\/p>\n<p>In a sense, the movement of Montanus, which was declared heretical by the church of his day (mid-second century), was an impetus toward the recognition of a closed canon of the written Word of God. He taught that the prophetic gift was permanently granted to the church and that he himself was a prophet. The pressure to deal with Montanism, therefore, intensified the search for a basic authority, and apostolic authorship or approval became recognized as the only sure standard for identifying God’s revelation. Even within the Scripture record, first-century prophets were subordinate and subject to apostolic authority (see, for example, 1 Cor 14:29-30; Eph 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>When all things were being reexamined in the Protestant Reformation, some of the Reformers sought means of reassuring themselves and their followers about the canon of Scripture. This was in some ways an unfortunate aspect of Reformation thinking, because once God in his providence had determined for his people the fixed content of Scripture, that became a fact of history and was not a repeatable process. Nevertheless, Luther established a theological test for the books of the Bible (and questioned some of them)—“Do they teach Christ?” Equally subjective, it would seem, was Calvin’s insistence that the Spirit of God bears witness to each individual Christian in any age of church history as to what is his Word and what is not.<\/p>\n<p>Actually, even for the initial acceptance of the written Word, it is neither safe nor sound (as far as Scripture or history teaches us) to say that recognition and reception was an intuitive matter. It was rather a matter of simple obedience to the known commands of Christ and his apostles. As we saw at the outset, our Lord promised (Jn 14:26; 16:13) to communicate all things necessary through his agents. The apostles were conscious of this responsibility and agency as they wrote. Paul’s explanation in 1 Corinthians 2:13 is apropos: “In telling you about these gifts we have even used the very words given to us by the Holy Spirit, not words that we as men might choose. So we use the Holy Spirit’s words to explain the Holy Spirit’s facts” (<span>tlb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Hence, the early church, with closer ties and greater information than is available to us today, examined the testimony of the ancients. They were able to discern which were the authentic and authoritative books by their apostolic origin. Mark’s association with Peter, and Luke’s with Paul, gave them such apostolic approval, and epistles like Hebrews and Jude were also tied in with the apostolic message and ministry. Incontrovertible consistency of doctrine in all the books, including the sometime contested ones, was perhaps a subordinate test. But historically the procedure was essentially one of acceptance and approval of those books that were vouched for by knowledgeable church leaders. Full acceptance by the original recipients followed by a continued acknowledgment and use is an essential factor in the development of the canon.<\/p>\n<p>The church’s concept of canon, derived first of all from the reverence given the OT Scriptures, rested in the conviction that the apostles were uniquely authorized to speak in the name of the one who possessed all authority—the Lord Jesus Christ. The development from there is logical and straightforward. Those who heard Jesus in person were immediately subject to his authority. He personally authenticated his words to the believers. These same believers knew that Jesus authorized his apostles to speak in his name, both during and (more significantly) after his earthly ministry. Apostolic speaking on behalf of Christ was recognized in the church, whether in personal utterance or in written form. Both the spoken word of an apostle and the letter of an apostle constituted the word of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>The generation that followed that of the apostles themselves received the witness of those who knew that the apostles had the right to speak and write in the name of Christ. Consequently, the second and third generation of Christians looked back to apostolic words (writings) as the very words of Christ. This is what is really meant by canonization—recognition of the divinely authenticated Word. Hence, the believers (the church) did not establish the canon but simply bore witness to its extent by recognizing the authority of the word of Christ.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BIBLE*, Canon of the Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century AD, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato...","summary_en":"BIBLE*, Canon of the Those books in the Jewish and Christian Bible considered to be Scripture and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. The term translates both a Greek and a Hebrew word that mean “a rule,” or “measuring rod.” It is a list to which other books are compared and by which they are measured. After the fourth century AD, the Christian church found itself with only 66 books that constituted its Scripture; 27 of these were the NT and 39 were the OT. Just as Plato...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45147,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","summary_en":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72773,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","summary_en":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100399,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","summary_en":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128025,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:4","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:4<\/strong> <em>You must not muzzle an ox:<\/em> The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","summary_en":"25:4 You must not muzzle an ox: The animal had to be able to eat the grain as it worked (cp. 1 Cor 9:9-14; 1 Tim 5:17-18).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":5761,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Brother","title_en":"Brother","content_ro":"<h3>BROTHER<\/h3>\n<p>Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for Benjamin is not always found between brothers. Cain killed his brother Abel (4:8), and Esau hated his brother, Jacob (27:41). A brother may be a bad influence (Dt 13:6-7), but ideally he is one who helps in times of need (Prv 17:17). The law of levirate marriage required that if a man died leaving a childless widow, the man’s brother had to raise up children through her to perpetuate the family name (Dt 25:5).<\/p>\n<p>David spoke affectionately of his “brother” Jonathan, although they were not related (2 Sm 1:26). A fellow Israelite could be called brother. The relationship required certain obligations: money could not be loaned to a brother at interest, and a brother could not be enslaved (Lv 25:35-43).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek word is used to describe natural brothers, such as Andrew and Peter (Jn 1:41). Four brothers of Jesus are named (Mk 6:3). (The Roman Catholic view is that they were really Jesus’ cousins, but the Greek language has several words for cousin, and the word “brother” is used here; thus, it refers either to children or foster children of Mary and Joseph.) Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him at first (Jn 7:5), but after the resurrection they were meeting with the Christian community (Acts 1:14). Jesus taught that his disciples had one Father (God) and were therefore brothers (Mt 23:8-9), and he graciously identified himself with the disciples as their brother (28:10).<\/p>\n<p>Early in the history of the church it became customary for Christians to address one another as brother (Acts 9:17; Col 1:1); on two occasions the Christian community is called “the brotherhood” (1 Pt 2:17; 5:9, <span>rsv<\/span>). Specific duties and responsibilities accompany Christian brotherhood. A Christian’s love for his brother will be demonstrated in the restraint of sexual passions (1 Thes 4:6), provision of material goods when needed (Jas 2:15-16), and determination not to offend (Rom 14:13). A Christian must not “go to law” against a brother (1 Cor 6:5-6), but brothers must resolve their problems either personally or within the church group (Mt 18:15-17). The relationship between Christians is significant because a Christian cannot offer worship to God if he is out of harmony with his brother (Mt 5:23-24).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Brothers (and Sisters).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BROTHER<\/h3>\n<p>Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for Benjamin is not always found between brothers. Cain killed his brother Abel (4:8), and Esau hated his brother, Jacob (27:41). A brother may be a bad influence (Dt 13:6-7), but ideally he is one who helps in times of need (Prv 17:17). The law of levirate marriage required that if a man died leaving a childless widow, the man’s brother had to raise up children through her to perpetuate the family name (Dt 25:5).<\/p>\n<p>David spoke affectionately of his “brother” Jonathan, although they were not related (2 Sm 1:26). A fellow Israelite could be called brother. The relationship required certain obligations: money could not be loaned to a brother at interest, and a brother could not be enslaved (Lv 25:35-43).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the Greek word is used to describe natural brothers, such as Andrew and Peter (Jn 1:41). Four brothers of Jesus are named (Mk 6:3). (The Roman Catholic view is that they were really Jesus’ cousins, but the Greek language has several words for cousin, and the word “brother” is used here; thus, it refers either to children or foster children of Mary and Joseph.) Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him at first (Jn 7:5), but after the resurrection they were meeting with the Christian community (Acts 1:14). Jesus taught that his disciples had one Father (God) and were therefore brothers (Mt 23:8-9), and he graciously identified himself with the disciples as their brother (28:10).<\/p>\n<p>Early in the history of the church it became customary for Christians to address one another as brother (Acts 9:17; Col 1:1); on two occasions the Christian community is called “the brotherhood” (1 Pt 2:17; 5:9, <span>rsv<\/span>). Specific duties and responsibilities accompany Christian brotherhood. A Christian’s love for his brother will be demonstrated in the restraint of sexual passions (1 Thes 4:6), provision of material goods when needed (Jas 2:15-16), and determination not to offend (Rom 14:13). A Christian must not “go to law” against a brother (1 Cor 6:5-6), but brothers must resolve their problems either personally or within the church group (Mt 18:15-17). The relationship between Christians is significant because a Christian cannot offer worship to God if he is out of harmony with his brother (Mt 5:23-24).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Family Life and Relations; Brothers (and Sisters).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BROTHER Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman. In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for B...","summary_en":"BROTHER Man or boy in his relationship to the other children of his parents; also a close male friend or fellow member of the same race, creed, profession, organization, and the like; a kinsman. In the OT the Hebrew word translated “brother” describes the relationship between male children who have at least one parent in common. Joseph and Benjamin were children of Jacob and Rachel (Gn 35:24), but the other sons born to Jacob are also called Joseph’s brothers (42:6). The love Joseph had for B...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16278,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Family* Herod, Herodian","title_en":"Family* Herod, Herodian","content_ro":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\n<p>Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n<p>• Herod the Great<\/p>\n<p>• Archelaus<\/p>\n<p>• Antipas<\/p>\n<p>• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa II<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHerodianDynasty\">The Herodian Dynasty (67–47 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>The Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: <em>Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and <em>The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodtheGreat\">Herod the Great (47–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>Herod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 <span>BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>The reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 <span>BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 <span>BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 <span>BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\n<p>The first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\n<p>The second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\n<p>The third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\n<p>The second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 <span>BC<\/span> (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 <span>BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\n<p>During this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 <span>BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\n<p>The third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 <span>BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 <span>BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\n<p>Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\n<p>In his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 <span>BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 <span>BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Archelaus\">Archelaus (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (<em>War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in <span>AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Antipas\">Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\n<p>Antipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 <span>BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\n<p>Antipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">polis<\/span><em>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in <span>AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\n<p>In the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\n<p>Around <span>AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\n<p>The marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around <span>AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\n<p>There are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Early in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\n<p>Later, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\n<p>The final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\n<p>According to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s <em>Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhiliptheTetrarch\">Philip the Tetrarch (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\n<p>Philip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\n<p>He built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\n<p>Philip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in <span>AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in <span>AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaI\">Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\n<p>Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 <span>BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\n<p>Upon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (<span>AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\n<p>When Caligula died in <span>AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa died in <span>AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; <em>War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaII\">Agrippa II (<span>AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In <span>AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (<span>AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\n<p>In May <span>AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (<em>War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s <em>History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, <span>AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\n<p>Following this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In <span>AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for <em>The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s <em>Life<\/em> 65.361–367; <em>Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around <span>AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY*<\/h3>\n<p>Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to Rome to be tried by Caesar. Without a knowledge of the Herodian family, one can hardly have a proper understanding of the times of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Herodian Dynasty<\/p>\n<p>• Herod the Great<\/p>\n<p>• Archelaus<\/p>\n<p>• Antipas<\/p>\n<p>• Philip the Tetrarch<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa I<\/p>\n<p>• Agrippa II<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHerodianDynasty\">The Herodian Dynasty (67–47 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<p>The Herodian dynasty became prominent during the confusion that resulted in the decay of the Hasmonean dynasty, the transference of Syria and Palestine to Roman rule, and the civil wars that marked the decay of the nation. Much of what we know about the Herods comes from the historian Josephus’s writings: <em>Antiquities of the Jews<\/em> and <em>The Jewish War.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodtheGreat\">Herod the Great (47–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/p>\n<h5>As Governor of Galilee (47–37 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>Herod the Great became governor of Galilee at 25 years of age. Although he gained the respect of both the Romans and the Galilean Jews for quickly capturing and executing the bandit leader Ezekias, some in Hyrcanus’s court thought that he was becoming too powerful and arranged to have him brought to trial. He was acquitted and released and thereafter fled to Sextus Caesar at Damascus. Sextus Caesar, governor of Syria, appointed Herod governor of Coele-Syria, and thus he became involved with Roman affairs in Syria. He remained in this position under a series of rulers and was successful in collecting taxes and suppressing various revolts. Thus, in 41 <span>BC<\/span> when Antony came to power under Octavius Caesar, after asking the advice of Hyrcanus II, Sextus appointed Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of Judea.<\/p>\n<h5>As King (37–4 <span>BC<\/span>)<\/h5>\n<p>The reign of Herod is divided by most scholars into three periods: (1) consolidation from 37 to 25 <span>BC<\/span>; (2) prosperity from 25 to 13 <span>BC<\/span>; and (3) domestic troubles from 13 to 4 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The period of consolidation extended from his accession as king in 37 <span>BC<\/span> to the death of the sons of Babas, the last male representatives of the Hasmonean family. During this period, he had to contend with many powerful adversaries.<\/p>\n<p>The first adversaries, the people and the Pharisees, objected to his being an Idumean, a half Jew, and a friend of the Romans. Those who opposed him were punished, and those who took his side were rewarded with favors and honors.<\/p>\n<p>The second adversaries were those of the aristocracy who sided with Antigonus. Herod had executed 45 of the wealthiest and had confiscated their properties to replenish his own coffers.<\/p>\n<p>The third group of adversaries was the Hasmonean family. Herod’s chief problem was his mother-in-law, Alexandra. She was upset that he had not appointed another Hasmonean to the high priesthood to replace Hyrcanus, specifically her son Aristobulus. She wrote to Cleopatra, asking her to influence Antony to force Herod to remove the appointed high priest, Ananel, and replace him with Aristobulus. Finally, Herod gave way to the pressure. In the end, after a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, Herod had Aristobulus drowned, making it look like an accident. Herod put Alexandra in chains and placed her under guard to keep her from causing him more trouble.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s fourth adversary was Cleopatra. When civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius, Herod wanted to help Antony. But Cleopatra persuaded Antony to set Herod in battle against the Arabian king Malchus, who had failed to pay tribute to her. When she saw Herod winning, she ordered her troops to help Malchus, hoping to weaken both parties to the breaking point so that she could absorb them both. After a catastrophic earthquake in his domain in 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Herod defeated the Arabs and returned home. Soon after, on September 2, 31 <span>BC<\/span>, Octavius defeated Antony in the Battle of Actium, resulting in the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra.<\/p>\n<p>The second period of Herod’s reign was one of prosperity (25–14 <span>BC<\/span>). It was a period of splendor and enjoyment interrupted by occasional disturbances. According to Josephus, the most noble of all Herod’s achievements was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, begun in 20\/19 <span>BC<\/span> (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 15.8.1). Rabbinic literature claims, “He who has not seen the Temple of Herod has never seen a beautiful building” (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Baba Bathra<\/em> 4a). Prior to this, he had built theaters, amphitheaters, and racecourses for both men and horses. In 24 <span>BC<\/span> Herod built himself a royal palace and built or rebuilt many fortresses and gentile temples, including Strato’s Tower, later renamed Caesarea.<\/p>\n<p>During this time, he became very interested in culture and gathered around him men accomplished in Greek literature and art. Greek rhetoricians were appointed to the highest offices of the state. One of these was Nicolas of Damascus, Herod’s instructor and adviser in philosophy, rhetoric, and history. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married Mariamne, daughter of Simon, a well-known priest in Jerusalem (she will be referred to as Mariamne II).<\/p>\n<p>During this period, Herod’s rule was favorably accepted by the people. They were annoyed, however, by two things. First, he violated Jewish law by his introduction of the quinquennial games in honor of Caesar; and second, he built theaters and racecourses. He demanded a loyalty oath from his subjects, except for a privileged few. Also, he would not allow them to congregate freely for fear of a revolt. Despite these things, he had good control of the people and twice favored them by lowering taxes (in 14 <span>BC<\/span> he reduced taxes by one-fourth).<\/p>\n<p>The third period of Herod’s rule was clearly marked by domestic troubles (13–4 <span>BC<\/span>). By now he had married ten wives. His first wife, Doris, had only one son, Antipater. He repudiated Doris and Antipater when he married Mariamne I, allowing them to visit Jerusalem only during the festivals. He married Mariamne I in 37 <span>BC<\/span>. She was the granddaughter of Hyrcanus and had five children, two daughters and three sons. The youngest son died while in Rome, and the remaining two sons were to play an important role in this part of Herod’s reign. In late 24 <span>BC<\/span> he married his third wife, Mariamne II, to whom one child was born, Herod (Philip). Malthace, his fourth wife, was a Samaritan and mother of two sons, Archelaus and Antipas. His fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, was the mother of Philip the tetrarch. Of the remaining five wives, only Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpsis are known by name, and none played a significant part in the events of this period.<\/p>\n<p>Alexander and Aristobulus, the sons of Mariamne I, were his favorites. Immediately following their own marriages, troubles began within the Herodian household. Salome, Herod’s sister and mother of Berenice (wife of Aristobulus), hated these two sons, mainly because she wanted the position and favor they enjoyed for her own son. Herod decided to recall his exiled son Antipater to show Alexander and Aristobulus there was another heir to the throne. Antipater took full advantage of the situation and used every conceivable means to acquire the coveted throne. Finally, a man of bad character, Eurycles from Lacedaemon, took it upon himself to inflame the father against his two sons and vice versa. Soon other mischief makers joined Eurycles, and Herod’s patience became exhausted. He put Alexander and Aristobulus in prison and named Antipater heir.<\/p>\n<p>In his impatience to gain the throne, Antipater attempted to poison Herod. This plot failed when Pheroras, Herod’s brother, drank the poison by mistake. Herod put Antipater in prison and reported the matter to the emperor (c. 5 <span>BC<\/span>). At this time Herod became very ill with an incurable disease. He drew up a new will that bypassed his older sons, Archelaus and Philip, because Antipater had poisoned his mind against them also. He chose his youngest son, Antipas, as his sole successor.<\/p>\n<p>It was during this time that the wise men arrived in Judea, searching for the newborn king of the Jews. Herod instructed them to report to him the whereabouts of this child as soon as they found him. Being warned in a dream, they did not do so, but rather returned to their homes by another route. God warned Joseph (husband of the mother of Jesus) to flee to Egypt because of Herod’s intention to kill Jesus. Joseph took his family and left Bethlehem. Shortly after, Herod killed all the male children in Bethlehem who were two years old and under.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s disease grew increasingly worse. Permission came from Rome to execute Antipater, which he promptly did. He again altered his will, making Archelaus king of Judea, Idumea, and Samaria; Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and Philip tetrarch of territories east of Galilee. On the fifth day after Antipater’s execution, Herod died at Jericho in the spring of 4 <span>BC<\/span>. The people acclaimed Archelaus as their king.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Archelaus\">Archelaus (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6)<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace (a Samaritan) and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. Archelaus was faced with a multitude of problems. He had killed 3,000 people in putting down a revolution led by people avenging the blood of those killed by his father, Herod. Thus his rule got off to a bad start. At Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>, another revolt broke out, which lasted about two and a half months and during which the temple porticoes were burned and the treasury was pillaged by the Romans. This unrest spread to the countryside of Judea and to Galilee and Perea.<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus treated both the Jews and the Samaritans brutally (<em>War<\/em> 2.7.3), a fact borne out by the Gospels. When Joseph returned from his flight to Egypt and learned that Archelaus was ruling Judea, he was afraid to go there and was warned against it by God; he took the infant Jesus to Galilee instead (Mt 2:22).<\/p>\n<p>Archelaus’s tyranny finally caused the Jews and Samaritans to send a delegation to Rome and complain formally to Augustus. The fact that such bitter enemies as the Jews and Samaritans could cooperate in this matter indicates the serious nature of the complaint. Antipas and Philip also went to Rome to complain about him. Presumably they resented his neglect as their Roman representative for Palestine. Thus in <span>AD<\/span> 6 Archelaus was deposed and exiled to Vienna in Gaul (modern Vienne on the Rhône, south of Lyons). Antipas and Philip were allowed to continue their respective rules, and Archelaus’s territories were reduced to a province ruled by prefects or procurators.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Antipas\">Antipas (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 39)<\/p>\n<p>Antipas was the younger brother of Archelaus, born around 20 <span>BC<\/span>. Of all the Herodians, he is mentioned most in the NT because he ruled over Galilee and Perea, where both Jesus and John the Baptist concentrated their ministries.<\/p>\n<p>Antipas’s domain was in turmoil caused by the rebellion begun at Pentecost in 4 <span>BC<\/span>. He immediately set out to restore order and rebuild what had been destroyed. Following the example of his father, Herod the Great, Antipas founded cities. Sepphoris was his first project; it was the largest city in Galilee and his capital city until he built Tiberias. Since Nazareth was only four miles (6.4 kilometers) south-southeast of Sepphoris, it is quite possible that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was employed as a carpenter (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3) to help rebuild that city.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 12 cities built by the Herodian family, Tiberias is the most important. It was the first city in Jewish history to be founded with the municipal framework of a Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">polis<\/span><em>.<\/em> It was built in honor of the reigning emperor, Tiberius. Due to the fact that a cemetery was destroyed in the process of building, Tiberias was considered unclean by the Jews. Antipas offered free houses, land and tax exemptions for the first few years to anyone who would move into the city. He completed the city in <span>AD<\/span> 23 and made it his capital.<\/p>\n<p>In the Christian world the incident for which Antipas is most remembered is his beheading of John the Baptist (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20; <em>Antiquities<\/em> 18.5.2.116-119). There was a tangle of family events leading up to the death of John the Baptist. Antipas had married the daughter of Aretas IV (the daughter’s name is unknown). Aretas IV was the Nabatean king, and Augustus may have encouraged this marriage since he favored intermarriages between various rulers to promote peace in his empire.<\/p>\n<p>Around <span>AD<\/span> 29 Antipas took a trip to Rome, and on the way he paid a visit to his half brother Herod Philip, who must have lived in a coastal city in Palestine. Antipas fell in love with Herodias, Philip’s wife, who was also Antipas’s niece. The idea of becoming the wife of a tetrarch appealed to her, and she agreed to marry him when he returned from Rome if he would oust Aretas’s daughter. Antipas agreed to the plan, and when Aretas’s daughter heard of it, she fled to her father. This was a breach of political alliance as well as a personal insult, which led to retaliation by Aretas.<\/p>\n<p>The marriage of Antipas and Herodias was in violation of the Mosaic law that forbade marriage to a brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21) except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case, Philip not only had a child, Salome, but he was still alive. This is the situation that John the Baptist spoke so boldly against, and Antipas threw him in prison. Herodias’s hatred of John the Baptist was too great merely to settle for his incarceration. At an appropriate time, possibly Antipas’s birthday, she planned a banquet at Machaerus in Perea. Her daughter, Salome, danced for the king, and in an impulsive moment Antipas promised her under oath that he would give her anything, up to half of his kingdom. Following her mother’s advice, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter. Immediately Antipas was sorry for his rash promise, but in order to save face in the presence of his underlords, he granted the request. Thus, John’s ministry ended around <span>AD<\/span> 31 or 32.<\/p>\n<p>There are three specific times when Antipas and Jesus are mentioned together in the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p>Early in Jesus’ ministry Antipas heard of him and commented, perhaps with irony, that Jesus was John the Baptist resurrected (Mt 14:1-2; Mk 6:14-16; Lk 9:7-9). It was obvious to Antipas that Jesus’ ministry was even more remarkable than John’s, but he was reluctant to use force to bring about the meeting for fear of once more arousing the people against him. Eventually, Jesus withdrew from Antipas’s territories without the two meeting.<\/p>\n<p>Later, as Jesus became more popular, Antipas saw a potential threat to his own power and threatened to kill Jesus. Thus it was that on Jesus’ final trip to Jerusalem he was warned by some of the Pharisees that he should leave Antipas’s territories for his own safety (Lk 13:31-33). Jesus sent as answer to “that fox” that he would continue his ministry of healing and casting out demons for a little longer, and when he had finished, he would then go to Jerusalem to die. The lion and fox were often contrasted in ancient literature. The Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ, was not going to be coerced by the crafty coward, Antipas.<\/p>\n<p>The final encounter between the two occurred when Jesus was tried by Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 33 (Lk 23:6-12). Since this event is mentioned only by Luke, some scholars consider it legendary. It must be remembered, however, that Luke’s addressee was Theophilus, probably a Roman officer, who would be especially interested in the reconciliation between Pilate and Antipas mentioned in this passage.<\/p>\n<p>According to Luke’s account, when Pilate could find no fault in Jesus, he sent him to Antipas (who was celebrating the Passover in Jerusalem). Pilate thus freed himself from an awkward situation. A more subtle reason may have been to reconcile himself to Antipas. Their relationship had been rather strained since the Galilean massacre (Lk 13:1), and because Pilate brought votive shields into Jerusalem, arousing the anger of the Jews (Philo’s <em>Legatio ad Gaium<\/em> 299–304). When Jesus was brought before Antipas, the ruler only mocked him and sent him back to Pilate. The main political accomplishment of the incident was Antipas and Pilate’s reconciliation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PhiliptheTetrarch\">Philip the Tetrarch (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 34)<\/p>\n<p>Philip the tetrarch was the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem and was born around 22 <span>BC<\/span>. When Herod’s will was resolved, Philip was made tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanea, Trachonitis, and Iturea, all in the northern part of Herod the Great’s domain (Lk 3:1). His subjects were mainly Syrian and Greek. Thus he was the first and only Herodian to have his image on his coins.<\/p>\n<p>He built two cities. First, he rebuilt and enlarged Paneas and renamed it Caesarea Philippi. Here Peter made his confession of faith to Jesus and was given the revelation of the church (Mt 16:13-20; Mk 8:27-30). Next, he rebuilt and enlarged Bethsaida and renamed it Julias. Here Jesus healed the blind man (Mk 8:22-26), and in a nearby desert place he fed the 5,000 (Lk 9:10-17).<\/p>\n<p>Philip was not as politically ambitious as his brothers. His rule was marked by tranquility and the loyalty of his subjects. When Philip died in <span>AD<\/span> 34, Tiberius annexed his territories to Syria. After Caligula became emperor in <span>AD<\/span> 37, he gave the territories to Agrippa I, brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaI\">Agrippa I (<span>AD<\/span> 37–44)<\/p>\n\n<p>Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus (son of Herod the Great and Mariamne I) and Berenice. He was born in 10 <span>BC<\/span> and was the brother of Herodias.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I might be considered the black sheep of the Herodian family. While at school in Rome, he lived a wanton life, incurring many debts. In Rome he became a friend of Gaius Caligula and at one point stated that he wished Caligula were king rather than Tiberius. This was overheard and reported to Tiberius, who imprisoned him. He remained in prison until Tiberius’s death six months later.<\/p>\n<p>Upon Caligula’s accession to the throne, he released Agrippa and gave him Philip the tetrarch’s territories and the northern part of Lysanias’s territory as well as the title of king. The title of king aroused the jealousy of his sister Herodias, and that eventually led to her husband, Antipas’s, downfall. At that time (<span>AD<\/span> 39) Agrippa acquired all of Antipas’s territories and property.<\/p>\n<p>When Caligula died in <span>AD<\/span> 41, Agrippa curried the favor of the new emperor Claudius, whereupon Claudius added Judea and Samaria to Agrippa’s territory. This territory was once ruled by Agrippa’s grandfather, Herod the Great.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa I is mentioned in the NT for his persecution of the early church in order to gain favor with the Jews (Acts 12:1-19). He killed James, the son of Zebedee, and imprisoned Peter. When Peter was released by an angel, Agrippa put the sentries to death.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa died in <span>AD<\/span> 44 in Caesarea. Accounts of this incident are recorded both by Josephus (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 19.9.1.274–275; <em>War<\/em> 2.11.5.214–215) and the Scriptures. The incident occurred at Caesarea; he was wearing a sparkling silver robe, and when the people flattered him by calling him a god, he was suddenly struck with a mortal illness and died a horrible death. He was survived by his daughters, Bernice, Mariamne, and Drusilla, and by a son, Agrippa, who was 17 at the time. Because of Agrippa II’s youth, his father’s territories were temporarily made a province.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AgrippaII\">Agrippa II (<span>AD<\/span> 50–100)<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was the son of Agrippa I and Cypros. In <span>AD<\/span> 50, six years after his father’s death, Claudius made him king of Chalcis.<\/p>\n<p>Agrippa II was in control of the temple treasury and the vestments of the high priest and thus could appoint the high priest. The Romans consulted him on religious matters, which is probably why Festus asked him to hear the apostle Paul at Caesarea (<span>AD<\/span> 59), where he was accompanied by his sister Bernice (Acts 25–26).<\/p>\n<p>In May <span>AD<\/span> 66 the Palestinian revolution began (<em>War<\/em> 2.14.4.284). When Agrippa’s attempt to quell the revolt failed, he became a staunch ally of the Romans throughout the entire war (<span>AD<\/span> 66–70). During this time, Nero committed suicide, the new emperor Galba was murdered, and Vespasian became the emperor. After pledging his allegiance to the new emperor, Agrippa remained with Titus, Vespasian’s son, who was in charge of the war (Tacitus’s <em>History<\/em> 5.81). After the fall of Jerusalem (August 6, <span>AD<\/span> 70), Agrippa was probably present to celebrate the destruction of his own people.<\/p>\n<p>Following this, Vespasian added new territories to Agrippa’s kingdom, though just which ones is not known. In <span>AD<\/span> 79 Vespasian died and Titus became emperor. Little is known of Agrippa’s rule after this, except that he wrote to the historian Josephus praising him for <em>The Jewish War,<\/em> and he purchased a copy of it (Josephus’s <em>Life<\/em> 65.361–367; <em>Apion<\/em> 1.9.47–52).<\/p>\n<p>Although the Talmud implies that Agrippa II had two wives (Babylonian Talmud: <em>Sukkah<\/em> 27a), Josephus gives no indication that he had any wives or children. Rather, he was known for his incestuous relationship with his sister Bernice. He died around <span>AD<\/span> 100. His death marked the end of the Herodian dynasty.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herodians; Judaism.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","summary_en":"HEROD, HERODIAN FAMILY* Political rulers during the lifetime of Christ. Christ was born when Herod the Great was ruling. Herod’s son Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee and Perea, the territories in which Jesus and John the Baptist carried out most of their ministries. It was this ruler who beheaded John the Baptist and tried Christ just before his death. Herod Agrippa I is the persecutor of the church in Acts 12, and Herod Agrippa II heard Paul’s testimony (Acts 26) just before he went to...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16303,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Herodias","title_en":"Herodias","content_ro":"<h3>HERODIAS<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 <span>BC<\/span>, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 <span>BC<\/span>, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between <span>AD<\/span> 15 and 19.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In <span>AD<\/span> 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on his way to Rome. They were attracted to each other and Herodias agreed to marry him provided he would divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nebatean king of Petra. Herodias, being a Hasmonean, did not want to share the house with an Arab—longtime foes of the Hasmonean dynasty. When Aretas’s daughter got word of this plot, she secretly escaped to her father, and Herodias and Antipas were married. This incident was the beginning of hostilities between Antipas and Aretas, which eventually led to Aretas’s war against and defeat of Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 36.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist openly denounced this marriage (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20) because Jewish law forbade marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21), except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case the brother, Herod Philip, was still alive and had a child, Salome. The bold denunciation by John the Baptist led to Antipas’s imprisoning him around <span>AD<\/span> 30 or 31. Herodias wanted more than this. She arranged, possibly at Herod Antipas’s birthday, to have her daughter dance before him and his magistrates. In appreciation, Herod Antipas promised Salome up to half of his kingdom. At her mother’s bidding, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias last appears in history involved in an intrigue between her brother, Agrippa I, who had been designated king by the emperor Caligula, and her husband Antipas, who had long wanted such a title. Antipas, at his wife’s insistence, went to Rome to plead his case, but he lost and was banished. Herodias, however, did remain faithful and followed him into exile, even though Caligula would not have punished her because she was Agrippa’s sister.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HERODIAS<\/h3>\n<p>Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 <span>BC<\/span>, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 <span>BC<\/span>, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between <span>AD<\/span> 15 and 19.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In <span>AD<\/span> 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on his way to Rome. They were attracted to each other and Herodias agreed to marry him provided he would divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, the Nebatean king of Petra. Herodias, being a Hasmonean, did not want to share the house with an Arab—longtime foes of the Hasmonean dynasty. When Aretas’s daughter got word of this plot, she secretly escaped to her father, and Herodias and Antipas were married. This incident was the beginning of hostilities between Antipas and Aretas, which eventually led to Aretas’s war against and defeat of Antipas in <span>AD<\/span> 36.<\/p>\n<p>John the Baptist openly denounced this marriage (Mt 14:3-12; Mk 6:17-29; Lk 3:19-20) because Jewish law forbade marriage with one’s brother’s wife (Lv 18:16; 20:21), except in order to raise children for a deceased childless brother by a levirate marriage (Dt 25:5; Mk 12:19). In this case the brother, Herod Philip, was still alive and had a child, Salome. The bold denunciation by John the Baptist led to Antipas’s imprisoning him around <span>AD<\/span> 30 or 31. Herodias wanted more than this. She arranged, possibly at Herod Antipas’s birthday, to have her daughter dance before him and his magistrates. In appreciation, Herod Antipas promised Salome up to half of his kingdom. At her mother’s bidding, she asked for John the Baptist’s head on a platter.<\/p>\n<p>Herodias last appears in history involved in an intrigue between her brother, Agrippa I, who had been designated king by the emperor Caligula, and her husband Antipas, who had long wanted such a title. Antipas, at his wife’s insistence, went to Rome to plead his case, but he lost and was banished. Herodias, however, did remain faithful and followed him into exile, even though Caligula would not have punished her because she was Agrippa’s sister.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Herod, Herodian Family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HERODIAS Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD 15 and 19. Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on ...","summary_en":"HERODIAS Daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great, and Berenice. Born between 9 and 7 BC, her older brother was Herod Agrippa I. In 6 BC, while still in her infancy, she was betrothed by her grandfather, Herod the Great, to his son by Mariamne II named Herod Philip. Herodias was the mother of Salome, born between AD 15 and 19. Herodias and Herod Philip lived on the seacoast of Judea, possibly at Azotus or Caesarea. In AD 29 Herod Antipas visited Herodias’s (his niece) residence on ...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17431,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Incest*","title_en":"Incest*","content_ro":"<h3>INCEST*<\/h3>\n<p>Sexual relations between close relatives.<\/p>\n<p>Prohibitions against incest are prominent in Leviticus 18. Leviticus 20 also addresses the matter and attaches the death penalty to certain kinds of incest. The assignment of severe penalty and the judgments of dishonor and perversion clearly mark incest as a grave offense.<\/p>\n<p>Actual cases in the Bible show incest to be the fruit of a flawed character. Lot’s daughters slept with their drunken father and both became pregnant (Gn 19:30-38). And in 2 Samuel 13:1-22, the deceitful Amnon showed no shame in forcing himself upon his half sister Tamar. Paul’s strong rebuke in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 demonstrates that neither the act nor its wickedness is limited to OT times.<\/p>\n<p>Blood relationship, or consanguinity, is one ground for declaring sexual contact unlawful. This applies, for example, to brothers and sisters, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, as well as some aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.<\/p>\n<p>The relationships denounced in Leviticus 18 are not, however, all based upon blood kinship. A number of them are matters of kinship through marriage, matters of affinity. In this connection, sexual relations with in-laws and certain aunts and uncles are declared incestuous. It should be noted that the in-law rule could be relaxed in ancient Israel when a widowed sister-in-law was left without a son (Dt 25:5-10).<\/p>\n<p>While there are good genetic reasons to shun incest among blood relations, the fundamental problem with incest is that it strikes at the soundness of the family. And since the family is central to God’s purposes and work on earth, his judgment on this practice is fierce. Families simply cannot survive sexual intrigue among their members.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>INCEST*<\/h3>\n<p>Sexual relations between close relatives.<\/p>\n<p>Prohibitions against incest are prominent in Leviticus 18. Leviticus 20 also addresses the matter and attaches the death penalty to certain kinds of incest. The assignment of severe penalty and the judgments of dishonor and perversion clearly mark incest as a grave offense.<\/p>\n<p>Actual cases in the Bible show incest to be the fruit of a flawed character. Lot’s daughters slept with their drunken father and both became pregnant (Gn 19:30-38). And in 2 Samuel 13:1-22, the deceitful Amnon showed no shame in forcing himself upon his half sister Tamar. Paul’s strong rebuke in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 demonstrates that neither the act nor its wickedness is limited to OT times.<\/p>\n<p>Blood relationship, or consanguinity, is one ground for declaring sexual contact unlawful. This applies, for example, to brothers and sisters, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, as well as some aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.<\/p>\n<p>The relationships denounced in Leviticus 18 are not, however, all based upon blood kinship. A number of them are matters of kinship through marriage, matters of affinity. In this connection, sexual relations with in-laws and certain aunts and uncles are declared incestuous. It should be noted that the in-law rule could be relaxed in ancient Israel when a widowed sister-in-law was left without a son (Dt 25:5-10).<\/p>\n<p>While there are good genetic reasons to shun incest among blood relations, the fundamental problem with incest is that it strikes at the soundness of the family. And since the family is central to God’s purposes and work on earth, his judgment on this practice is fierce. Families simply cannot survive sexual intrigue among their members.<\/p>","summary_ro":"INCEST* Sexual relations between close relatives. Prohibitions against incest are prominent in Leviticus 18. Leviticus 20 also addresses the matter and attaches the death penalty to certain kinds of incest. The assignment of severe penalty and the judgments of dishonor and perversion clearly mark incest as a grave offense. Actual cases in the Bible show incest to be the fruit of a flawed character. Lot’s daughters slept with their drunken father and both became pregnant (Gn 19:30-38). And in ...","summary_en":"INCEST* Sexual relations between close relatives. Prohibitions against incest are prominent in Leviticus 18. Leviticus 20 also addresses the matter and attaches the death penalty to certain kinds of incest. The assignment of severe penalty and the judgments of dishonor and perversion clearly mark incest as a grave offense. Actual cases in the Bible show incest to be the fruit of a flawed character. Lot’s daughters slept with their drunken father and both became pregnant (Gn 19:30-38). And in ...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":17447,"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":23806,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Maccabean","title_en":"Period*, Maccabean","content_ro":"<h3>MACCABEAN PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 <span>BC<\/span> to approximately 40 <span>BC<\/span>, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.<\/p>\n<p>From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 <span>BC<\/span>, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.<\/p>\n<p>The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.<\/p>\n<p>Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.<\/p>\n<p>Before 200 <span>BC<\/span>, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.<\/p>\n<p>By 175 <span>BC<\/span>, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.<\/p>\n<p>The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.<\/p>\n<p>It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.5.3).<\/p>\n<p>Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 <span>BC<\/span>, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).<\/p>\n<p>Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.<\/p>\n<p>Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 <span>BC<\/span>, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.<\/p>\n<p>Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.<\/p>\n<p>While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.<\/p>\n<p>From 152 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 <span>BC<\/span>, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.<\/p>\n<p>There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.<\/p>\n<p>In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.<\/p>\n<p>During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.<\/p>\n<p>As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.<\/p>\n<p>The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 <span>BC<\/span>. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.<\/p>\n<p>He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n<p>For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 <span>BC<\/span>, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.13.5).<\/p>\n<p>Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 14.14.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.16.2).<\/p>\n<p>Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.<\/p>\n<p>The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 <span>BC<\/span>, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.<\/p>\n<p>As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.<\/p>\n<p>An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 <span>BC<\/span>, Pompey intervened personally.<\/p>\n<p>Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.<\/p>\n<p>In 57 <span>BC<\/span> Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.<\/p>\n<p>Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 <span>BC<\/span>, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.<\/p>\n<p>They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n<p>During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MACCABEAN PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 <span>BC<\/span> to approximately 40 <span>BC<\/span>, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion.<\/p>\n<p>From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 <span>BC<\/span>, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian descendants of Ptolemy, the Syrians, and later the Romans vied for political control. The Ptolemies, though directing activities from Egypt rather than from Athens, were themselves Greeks and, like the Syrian kings of the Seleucid dynasty, were descendants of Alexander’s generals. Thus the Ptolemies were also Hellenists. They believed in the superiority of everything Greek. They encouraged the extension of learning and built the library of Alexandria to develop a center of Greek culture in competition with Athens itself.<\/p>\n<p>The aim of the pro-Greeks or Hellenists was to introduce Greek culture to the Near East, to establish Greek-style cities and colonies, and to encourage intermarriage between Greeks and Asians. In this way nationalism would be engulfed in the overall Greek plan, national heritage would be lost, and national or regional religions would give way to the legends and symbolism of the colorful Greek gods.<\/p>\n<p>Judah represented a small nation in this vast picture. The chances for the survival of the religion, heritage, or political freedom of this group would have appeared to be minimal. In their favor, however, was the faith and assurance that God was with his people and that, if they followed his dictates, they would survive. They realized that as a people they might face suffering and exile, but they knew that, if they held firm in their faith, the nucleus of a nation would be preserved. They were also upheld in their attitude by the belief that the coming of the Messiah was imminent.<\/p>\n<p>Before 200 <span>BC<\/span>, neither Egypt nor Syria seemed able to gain long-term control over Judea, until an agreement was reached assigning the jurisdiction to Syria, and this was supported by Judea. In appreciation, Antiochus the Great of Syria canceled Judean taxes for three years and promised compensation for the cities destroyed in the preceding battles. Priests, scribes, and temple singers were exempted from certain taxes, and duties on imported timber were removed temporarily to facilitate reconstruction in Jerusalem. Money was made available for sacrifices, and many Jewish prisoners were freed.<\/p>\n<p>By 175 <span>BC<\/span>, the picture had changed considerably. Antiochus IV Epiphanes had gained the throne of Syria by assassinating both his brother and the rightful heir to the kingdom. Prior to this, Antiochus IV had lived in Athens and had also been held hostage in Rome for 14 years. He understood and respected the political power of Rome, and to prevent a takeover of the Near East, he decided to expand his own position by conquering Egypt and bringing the entire area under Syrian control. Impressed by Greek philosophy and traditions, he aimed to use a program of Hellenization as a tool to unite the diverse peoples under his control. A dangerous madman, he would stop at nothing to achieve his political ends.<\/p>\n<p>The most influential position in Jerusalem at the time was that of the high priest. It seemed to be as much a political as a religious office. Traditionally the high priest had been a descendant of Aaron, and during this period of unrest, it was essential for the position to be held by a strong and inspiring leader, firm in his own faith, who could be an example and help to rally those who opposed the encroachments of Hellenism. Thus the right to select the high priest became vested in the one who held military control over the area. When Syrian power was strong, the king attempted to install his own nominee as high priest. When Syria was involved in internal political squabbles or external military engagements, or was being defeated by the followers of Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish people were permitted temporarily to choose their own high priest and simultaneously to enjoy a certain amount of political independence and relief from taxes.<\/p>\n<p>It is understandable, therefore, just how upset the Jews were when Antiochus first attempted to install his own nominee, Menelaus, as high priest. Since he was not of the line of Aaron, he had no claim to the position, having actually obtained it by making Antiochus a high monetary offer that swelled the coffers of the financially impoverished king. While Antiochus was busy invading Egypt, the people of Jerusalem took advantage of the opportunity to oust Menelaus and reinstate the former high priest. In revenge, Antiochus ordered that the city be sacked. Many of the inhabitants were killed, the temple was desecrated, and its treasure was removed. After this, the city was left in the hands of a Syrian military commander (1 Macc 1:20-29; 2 Macc 5:14-22; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.5.3).<\/p>\n<p>Still eager to obtain control of Egypt, Antiochus invaded it again, but retreated rapidly when he received orders to do so from the Senate in Rome. Fearful of the power and extent of Roman authority, he determined to secure the loyalty of the Jewish state by pressing his program of Hellenization. He thus hoped to use Judea as a partial buffer between himself and Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The observance of the Sabbath, religious festivals, sacrifices, and the circumcision of male children were forbidden by law, and copies of the Torah were destroyed. Altars to Greek gods were set up, and the Jews were ordered to eat the flesh of pigs, which was prohibited to them (2 Macc 6:18; see Lv 11:7). The temple in Jerusalem became a shrine dedicated to Zeus, and a pig was offered in sacrifice on the altar (1 Macc 1:41-64; 2 Macc 6:1-11; see Dn 11:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>In each Judean village an altar was set up and sacrifice offered under the watchful eye of a Syrian officer. In 166 <span>BC<\/span>, when the time came for Mattathias, an aged priest with five sons, to offer a sacrifice of unclean flesh to a pagan god, he refused on behalf of himself and his sons. In anger Mattathias killed both an apostate Jew, who had offered sacrifice, and the Syrian officer supervising the enactment of the new law. Prior to this, resistance had been steady but isolated, and although there were those who accepted the edict, many refused and faced death for their faith (1 Macc 1:60; 2:29-37; 2 Macc 6:18-31).<\/p>\n<p>Mattathias called upon supporters of the Hebrew law to follow him (1 Macc 2:15-27), and he and his sons fled to the hills. Mattathias was joined by an ardent religious group called the Hasidim, and together with other supporters, they waged a most successful guerrilla war from bases in the Judean hills.<\/p>\n<p>Attacks were made on isolated villages, heathen altars were torn down, and uncircumcised Jewish boys were circumcised. With the death of Mattathias in 166 <span>BC<\/span>, a more warlike phase of the struggle began under the direction of his son Judas Maccabeus, who became the symbol of Jewish resistance. He was a leader who waged a vigorous campaign in a righteous cause. He brought into focus the nationalistic sentiment of his people, and above all he was successful in the face of huge odds. His forays were more than a thorn in the flesh to Antiochus, for Judas’s tactics and victories earned the respect of his friends and fear of his enemies.<\/p>\n<p>The success of Judas gave him virtual control of the country. He immediately set about the restoration of the temple. The altar that had been used for sacrifice to Zeus was destroyed, and faithful priests rededicated the temple so that daily worship could be resumed (1 Macc 4:36-59; 2 Macc 10:1-8; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.7.6-7). The practice of the Jewish faith was restored in symbolism and in fact for all to see, with the institution of the Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). With the spiritual house in order, Judas set about rebuilding the city walls so that Jerusalem would be able to withstand the next Syrian onslaught.<\/p>\n<p>Then Judas and his brothers broadened their sights, hoping to secure freedom not only for Judea but for the whole of Palestine. Therefore, attacks were made against the Idumeans in Transjordan (1 Macc 5:1-8) and against Philistia (vv 9-68; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.8.1-6). Judas then set about achieving political freedom for Judea. He opposed the appointment of a high priest who, although of the line of Aaron, was a Hellenist (1 Macc 7:14; 2 Macc 14:3-7; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.9.7). The Hasidim broke ranks with Judas and accepted the new high priest, but certain promises were not honored, and 60 of them were slain. The remainder realized their mistake and rededicated their allegiance to Judas (1 Macc 7:15-20; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 12.10.2). A Syrian army that was dispatched to secure the high priest’s position in Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Syrians, together with their priestly nominee, fled ignominiously.<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the period, Rome was an overshadowing presence, and Judas hoped to use the might of Rome for his own political advantage in the perennial fight against Syria. A warning was sent to Demetrius stating that Judas was under the protection of Rome, but it arrived after a huge Syrian army had set out on a mission of revenge. Some of the Maccabean army deserted before the mighty hordes of Syria, and in the ensuing battle Judas was killed.<\/p>\n<p>While the Maccabeans regrouped under Judas’s younger brother, Jonathan, the Syrians and the Hellenists were in control of Jerusalem, rebuilding the walls and strengthening other cities against a possible Maccabean attack. Over the next few years, the Syrians suffered a defeat, and their support of the Hellenists in Judea was weakened. No new high priest was appointed by the Syrians, to the satisfaction of Jonathan, who did not want to see his own authority curtailed. When the Maccabees gained the ascendancy once more, they punished the Hellenists (1 Macc 9:23-73; Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.1.1-6), and for the following five years there was peace.<\/p>\n<p>From 152 <span>BC<\/span>, Syria was embroiled in internal struggles, both major factions vying for Jonathan’s support, while he in turn used the situation to strengthen his own position. Promises to Jonathan from these two factions ranged from the title of high priest to exemption from taxes and an increase in territory. Ultimately Jonathan was appointed high priest, being the first of the Maccabees to be offered this prestigious position. Judas would probably have liked the office as a crown to his military successes, but his family was not of the house of Aaron, and at that time the people would not have been prepared to accept him as high priest.<\/p>\n<p>As the throne of Syria changed hands through death in battle and assassination, Jonathan sided first with one faction, then with the other. He also sent an embassy to Rome to reconfirm his support in that quarter. Jonathan was then held hostage and murdered by the Syrians and was succeeded by Mattathias’s sole surviving son, Simon, in 143 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon extracted a treaty from the young Syrian king Demetrius II whereby Judea became virtually independent and considerably larger in territory. Simon was even given the right to mint coinage (1 Macc 15:6), a sure sign of independence, but as soon as Antiochus came to power in 139 <span>BC<\/span>, the right was withdrawn. In the period of peace that followed Simon’s treaty with Demetrius, many expected that the coming of the Messiah was near. They thought that perhaps he would be a descendant of Simon, despite the fact that the standards and tactics of some of the Maccabean leaders had been most questionable. Simon retained the title and office of high priest, and it became a hereditary position for his family.<\/p>\n<p>There was by no means universal support for Simon as high priest, however, even among the anti-Hellenists and the Hasidim, who had previously supported the Maccabeans. Some Jews also maintained that the priesthood should remain in the hands of the Aaronic line. The peace and relative prosperity continued until Simon was murdered by his son-in-law about 135 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Simon, the first of the Hasmonean line, was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus. He was a strong ruler, despite the troubled period that opened his reign. Antiochus VII, who had gained the throne of Syria a few years previously, attacked Jerusalem, and although the city held out for a year, it finally succumbed. Judea once again became tributary to Syria, not regaining its freedom until the death of Antiochus, about 128 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>At this time John Hyrcanus gained the enmity of the Hasidim (from then on known as Pharisees), whose disciple he had once been. It would seem likely that a claim to kingship had angered the Pharisees, who considered that this right rested with the Davidic line, whether or not there was a claimant ready to accept the throne.<\/p>\n<p>In his role as high priest, John Hyrcanus would have had close dealings with the Sadducees, a party as political as it was religious. It gained its support chiefly from the upper levels of society, whose descendants were the rulers of the Sanhedrin in NT times. The Pharisees, who observed the Torah in minute detail, must have constrained any ruler who tried to govern within their limitations.<\/p>\n<p>During the earlier Judean struggles, the Hasidim had sometimes sided with the Maccabeans but at other times had been content to remain quietly under the Syrian yoke so long as their freedom of worship was guaranteed. Under John Hyrcanus, however, they began to enjoy the privilege of influencing the national policy, and thriving on that taste of power they were reluctant to relinquish it. Their dismay at seeing political control pass into the hands of the Sadducees can be imagined.<\/p>\n<p>As dissension and dissatisfaction spread among the Pharisees, a leader emerged in Judea whom we know from the Qumran literature as the “Teacher of Righteousness.” As well as advocating strict adherence to the law, he taught that the present generation was the last generation and that final preparations for the imminent coming of the Messiah should be made. During the subsequent reign of Alexander Janneus, those who adhered strictly to the law were persecuted actively, and the “Teacher of Righteousness,” along with his immediate followers, left to set up their own establishment at Qumran in the Judean wilderness. They felt that since wickedness in the person of Alexander Janneus was prevailing, then God must have abandoned Israel and that he would, instead, be pleased to dwell with the surviving righteous remnant in Qumran.<\/p>\n<p>The group dissociated themselves completely from the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem by not finding it necessary to offer sacrifices in the temple and by resorting to the ancient calendar that had been preserved in Samaria, so that the great festivals were even celebrated on different dates. The success of the group also helped to undermine the authority of the temple and of the remainder of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of John Hyrcanus, the throne passed to a younger son, Aristobulus, who reigned for one year only, and then to the eldest son, Alexander Janneus, in 103 <span>BC<\/span>. At this time Jewish hopes ran high. The Syrians were too involved in their own political turmoil to be a threat and the new king set out on a path of successful conquest. In the midst of fighting, torture, and death, he was in his element, and from what we know of his character, it would seem that there was ample reason why the throne had passed first to his younger brother.<\/p>\n<p>He was extremely successful, however, in extending the boundaries of the Jewish nation from the Mediterranean coast to the frontiers of Egypt. His success was dearly won, as he frequently lost almost as many troops as his enemy. Most of his army consisted of mercenaries, whose pay came from a heavy tax burden for the Jewish people.<\/p>\n<p>For six years he was engaged in a bitter civil war and remained feared and unpopular. He seemed to have little genuine interest in religion, and it was unacceptable to many that a man with such a lust for blood should hold the office of high priest. He had also married his brother’s widow, Alexandra (Salome), which although permitted under the laws of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10), was strictly forbidden to the high priest (Lv 21:13-14; cf. Ez 44:22). The bitter feelings of the people toward Alexander Janneus were seen in the year 90 <span>BC<\/span>, when festival pilgrims pelted him with lemons as he was attempting to perform his priestly function at the Feast of Tabernacles. He reacted predictably by turning his guards on the crowd and killing 6,000 people (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.13.5).<\/p>\n<p>Since the king was supported by the Sadducees, the loyalty of the people veered toward the Pharisees. As opposition to Alexander Janneus built up, Syrian help was requested from Demetrius III. Fifty thousand Jews were estimated to have been killed in the subsequent fighting. Alexander Janneus suffered a severe defeat at Shechem, but Demetrius withdrew, leaving the shattered Pharisaic party to face the terrible wrath of their king. Many were executed, and approximately 8,000 went into exile (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 14.14.2).<\/p>\n<p>The Pharisees considered that Alexander Janneus had secularized the Jewish kingdom. His own Hellenistic upbringing in Galilee did not endear him to them. They were concerned, too, not only with his conquests but also with his attempts to impose the Jewish religion on other groups by force. On his deathbed Alexander Janneus handed the throne over to his wife, Alexandra Salome, instructing her to make peace with the Pharisees by giving them a share of power. She may have been the daughter of a prominent Pharisee, and she certainly heeded the advice, relinquishing almost complete power to the Pharisaic party (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 13.16.2).<\/p>\n<p>Revenge was sweet for the Pharisees, and many of the old traditions of the Sadducees were set aside. The situation was complicated further by the fact that the queen’s elder son, Hyrcanus, supported the Pharisees, while the younger, Aristobulus, followed the Sadducees. Though high priest and heir apparent, Hyrcanus, the elder son, was quiet and lacking in ambition. Contrary to this, Aristobulus grew in the image of his father and was appointed commander of the army.<\/p>\n<p>The Sadducees, claiming threats to national security, obtained permission from the queen to occupy several strongholds in the country. During Alexandra’s nine-year reign, the law had been upheld and well administered by the Pharisees. But with the death of the queen in 67 <span>BC<\/span>, the stage was set for turmoil between her two sons.<\/p>\n<p>As Aristobulus gathered an army and attacked his brother, many of the troops deserted Hyrcanus and he relinquished both crown and priesthood to Aristobulus. Instead of being able to retire quietly to his country estate as he had hoped, Hyrcanus was still looked on by the Pharisees as their leader.<\/p>\n<p>An Idumean named Antipater, father of the future king Herod the Great, then schemed to restore Hyrcanus to his unwanted throne. Quite clearly, Antipater hoped to be the power behind the figurehead Hyrcanus. Antipater and Hyrcanus, with outside support, defeated Aristobulus and besieged him in Jerusalem. Many devout Jews, eager to abandon the squabbling and bitterness, left for a new life in Egypt. The siege of Jerusalem aroused the interest of the nearby Roman army, and both sides appealed for assistance, offering large bribes. The Roman commander decided to support Aristobulus, but two years later, in 63 <span>BC<\/span>, Pompey intervened personally.<\/p>\n<p>Aristobulus, having aroused the suspicion of the Romans, attempted to defy the might of the approaching army. Followers of Hyrcanus opened the gates of the city to the Romans, and the temple was stormed on the Sabbath after three months of resistance by the supporters of Aristobulus. Pompey marched sword in hand into the Holy of Holies but did not remove the temple treasure. Although Aristobulus was spared, many of his principal supporters were executed. Judea lost any semblance of authority over many of the surrounding areas, and it became a tributary to Rome.<\/p>\n<p>The amount paid to Rome in taxes, although substantial, must have seemed small compared with the taxes that had been necessary to underwrite the incessant fighting of the previous century. Judea then entered upon a period of relative calm. To the Romans, the area was unimportant in the sense that major trade routes now focused on Rome. The routes to the East were no longer either useful or accessible because of the political barriers to the east, and the north-south trade route to Egypt was declining in importance.<\/p>\n<p>In 57 <span>BC<\/span> Aristobulus raised a minor revolt, the only result of which seems to have been the whittling away of what little authority remained to Hyrcanus. Aristobulus and his supporters continued their unsuccessful attempts for several years, but to no avail.<\/p>\n<p>Antipater, meanwhile, continued firm in his support of Hyrcanus and of Rome. During the civil war that began in 49 <span>BC<\/span>, Antipater changed sides from Pompey to Caesar, acting in the name of Hyrcanus, and when Caesar was successful, the Jews were rewarded with a remission of Roman taxes.<\/p>\n<p>They were confirmed in their religious freedom, and in Jewish matters they were allowed to be tried in their own courts. They were also exempt from Roman military service. Their territory was increased, and they were permitted to raise their own taxes. Antipater was personally rewarded by the Romans, and as his authority increased, so did the hatred and distrust of him by the Sadducees. Antipater appointed his son Herod as governor of Galilee.<\/p>\n<p>Herod immediately undertook to rid the area bordering on Syria of a group of “brigands” or “Judean patriots” who were under the leadership of Hezekiah. They had considerable local support, but many of the group were subsequently captured, including their leader, and they were executed. Since under Jewish law no man could be executed without the sentence being sanctioned by the Sanhedrin, Herod himself was called to account by the Jewish elders of the Sanhedrin.<\/p>\n<p>During the years of turmoil that followed, Antigonus was responsible for the death of Hyrcanus. Herod went to Rome and was confirmed as king of the Jews by the Senate, while Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans, was executed in Antioch. Thus the stage was set for the coming of a new and strong religious leader for the Jewish people, the long-awaited Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MACCABEAN PERIOD* Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion. From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian desc...","summary_en":"MACCABEAN PERIOD* Period of Israel’s history when the Maccabeans fought for Israel’s freedom and governed the country. This period lasted from 167 BC to approximately 40 BC, when the priest Mattathias and his descendants, particularly his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, were active opponents of all attempts to introduce Hellenistic practices into Jewish life and religion. From the conquest of Alexander the Great in 332 BC, Judea became alternately a pawn and a battleground as the Egyptian desc...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24474,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Marriage Customs Marriage","title_en":"Marriage Customs Marriage","content_ro":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS<\/h3>\n<p>The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.<\/p>\n<p>The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).<\/p>\n<p>Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the early monarchy, it is difficult to be certain about the matter, despite the importance in Egypt, and perhaps elsewhere, of the role of the mother in determining descent.<\/p>\n<p>Generally, the bride left her parents when she married and went to live with her husband’s clan, as Rebekah did (Gn 24:58-59). The phrase “to marry a wife” is from a root meaning to “become master” (Dt 21:13), and the wife frequently treated her husband as, and referred to him as, master.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew genealogical lists indicate that descent was reckoned through the male line (Gn 5:10; 36:9-43; Nm 1:1-15; Ru 4:18-22; 1 Chr 1:1-9). The important right of naming a child, indicating power and authority over that child, was exercised almost equally between father and mother in biblical references (cf. Gn 4:1, 25-26; 5:29; 35:18; 1 Sm 1:20; 4:21; Is 8:3; Hos 1:4-9). Sons were frequently named after their fathers and were identified with them.<\/p>\n<p>The father was the authority figure in the home in a patriarchal society. His wife and children were regarded as his possessions in somewhat the same way as his fields and livestock (Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21). He had the right to sell his daughters (Ex 21:7; Neh 5:5), and even had the power of life and death over his children.<\/p>\n<p>The ease with which a man could terminate a marriage by divorcing his wife also shows the measure of his authority in the family (Dt 24:1-4; cf. 22:13-21).<\/p>\n<p>A levirate marriage was instituted to preserve a family name and inheritance. When a man died, the responsibility for maintaining his widow and any children that she might have fell upon her husband’s closest male relative. The order of responsibility is set out in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. Normally, the brother of the deceased husband living with the clan was expected to enter into a levirate marriage with the widow. If she was childless, the firstborn of the new marriage was regarded as a child of the deceased. Levirate marriage was also known to the Canaanites, Assyrians, and Hittites.<\/p>\n<p>The most familiar levirate situation in the OT, although not conforming strictly to the law of Deuteronomy 25, is described in the book of Ruth. It was essential for Ruth to find some close male relative to marry her so that the family name and property could be preserved. The closest male relative declined the responsibility, feeling that it was a double imposition, first, to have to purchase the land and support Ruth, and second, to know that the first son would be regarded as her dead husband’s child, bearing his name and inheriting the land. Boaz agreed to undertake the responsibility (Ru 2:20–4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Despite numerous examples of polygamy cited in the OT, there is no doubt that the vast majority of the Israelites were monogamous. There are no examples given of large polygamous marriages in the families of commoners.<\/p>\n<p>The original instruction to Adam was that a “man . . . cleaves to his wife” (Gn 2:24). Hebrew laws generally imply that a marriage with one wife is the most acceptable form of marriage (Ex 20:17; 21:5; Lv 18:8, 16-20; 20:10; Nm 5:12; Dt 5:21). Although this seems to have become the norm by the time of the monarchy, a king such as Solomon did not follow Hebrew traditions in this matter. In the postexilic period marriages were predominantly monogamous, although they were being terminated increasingly by divorce. In the NT period monogamy seems to have been the rule, although persons such as Herod the Great were polygamous. Christ taught that marriage should last the lifetime of the partners, and if a man divorced his wife and married another woman during his previous spouse’s lifetime, he committed adultery (Mt 5:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>Marriage generally took place with those who were close to the immediate family circle, and it was imperative, therefore, that limits on acceptable consanguinity should be imposed. In patriarchal times a man could marry his half sister on his father’s side (Gn 20:12), and this continued to be the case even under David (2 Sm 13:13), although it was specifically forbidden in Leviticus 20:17. As there is some contradiction between the marriage laws of Deuteronomy and those in the Law of Holiness (Dt 25:5; Lv 18:16), it is possible that there was some modification of the stricter Levitical regulations. Marriages between cousins, such as Isaac with Rebekah, and Jacob with Rachel and Leah, were common. When a close relative was interested in marriage, it was almost impossible to refuse (Tb 6:13; 7:11-12). Moses was the offspring of a marriage between nephew and aunt (Ex 6:20; Nm 26:59), which would have been forbidden in Leviticus 18:12-13 and 20:19, as would Jacob’s marriage with two sisters at the same time (Gn 29:30).<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites settled in Canaan, many of them married Canaanite women, much to the consternation of those who desired to maintain the purity of the Hebrew religion (1 Kgs 11:4). Such intermarriage was prohibited under Mosaic law (Ex 34:15-16; Dt 7:3-4), although many Israelites ignored these regulations and continued to indulge in mixed marriages. If a woman was captured in war and was prepared to abandon her native country, an exception could be made (Dt 21:10-14). By contrast, Samson married a Philistine woman who remained with her own people, but who received conjugal visits from her husband periodically (Jgs 14:8–15:2).<\/p>\n<p>The danger of intermarriage affecting the purity of Hebrew religion was considered so great that in the postexilic period wholesale divorce was ordered where Jews had married foreign wives (Ezr 9:2; 10:3, 16-17). The intent was that the national religion should remain pure, even though homes and families were destroyed. Even in NT times, Paul denounced marriage with non-Christians (2 Cor 6:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>It is difficult to estimate at what age young people married. A boy was considered to be a man by his early teens, and late in Jewish tradition this transition was celebrated by the bar mitzvah, which generally occurred when the boy was 13.<\/p>\n<p>Normally the young man’s parents chose the bride. The resulting discussion about the marriage occurred between the groom’s parents and the bride’s parents, and often neither of the young people was consulted. It was not essential for the eldest in the family to be married first (Gn 29:26). When Abraham decided that Isaac should be married, a servant was sent to choose a bride from among Abraham’s relatives in Mesopotamia. The servant made contact with the bride’s brother and mother (24:33-53), and it was only afterward that Rebekah was asked to give her consent (vv 57-58). Her father was possibly incapacitated; otherwise, it would have been unlikely that her consent would have been asked at all.<\/p>\n<p>One of the reasons why the average young man would not have been able to afford more than one wife was the practice of the bride-price, which had to be paid to the bride’s father. It was possible to substitute service for the bride-price (Gn 29:15-30), or the completion of an appointed task (1 Sm 18:25-27). A specific sum is mentioned for the bride-price in the case of a virgin who had been raped and who had to be purchased by her seducer. The price was set at 50 shekels, but this was considered to be a punishment; it is probable that the normal amount was between 10 and 320 shekels (Lv 27:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the second temple, a virgin bride was considered to be worth 50 shekels, and a widow or divorced woman about half that sum. During this period, a virgin bride was normally married in midweek so that, if her husband found her not to be a virgin, he could bring proof to the court the following day, which would still be in advance of the Sabbath. A widow or a divorced woman normally married on the equivalent of a Thursday, giving her a full day with her husband before the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>Marriage was a covenant or alliance between two families. It thus united them, and by extending the kinship, the overall size of the group was increased. This was important in a society where responsibilities for relatives, however distant, were accepted unhesitatingly. The covenant concept also could have political overtones, as with the marriage between Solomon and the Egyptian princess (1 Kgs 11:1) or Ahab of Israel and Jezebel of Tyre (16:31).<\/p>\n<p>The sealing of the covenant included the transfer of gifts, which would establish the wealth and status of the donor and of the bride (Gn 34:12). In the ancient Near East, the giving of a gift was thought to include a part of the donor, so that the giver was actually offering a portion of himself. The gift that sealed the covenant also established the donor’s authority over the bride.<\/p>\n<p>The next stage in the marriage procedure was the betrothal. First mentioned in Exodus 22:16, the term is used several times in Deuteronomy (Dt 20:7; 22:23-24). The betrothal had the legal status of a marriage (Dt 28:30; 2 Sm 3:14), and anyone violating a betrothed virgin would be stoned, according to the law of Deuteronomy, for violating his neighbor’s “wife” (Dt 22:23-24). The meaning of a betrothal involved taking possession, in a manner similar to that of receiving tribute. Nevertheless, there remained a distinction between betrothing a woman and taking her as a wife (20:7). During the period of betrothal, the prospective groom was exempt from military service. It was assumed that the betrothal was a formal part of a permanent relationship (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27; 2:5).<\/p>\n<p>A man who was to marry another’s daughter was already regarded as a son-in-law at the time of betrothal (Gn 19:14). Mary, as Joseph’s betrothed, was actually considered his wife, although he did not have intercourse with her until after the birth of Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The first biblical record of a wedding being celebrated by a feast is in the story of Jacob (Gn 29:22). There was no actual marriage contract recorded until its mention in the book of Tobit (Tb 7:12). This contract was not considered valid until the couple had cohabited for a week (Gn 29:27; Jgs 14:12, 18). When Samson left his bride before the end of the seven-day period, the bride’s parents considered the marriage void and gave her to another man (Jgs 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>The wedding was an occasion of great family rejoicing. The special clothing of the bride and groom (Is 61:10; Ez 16:9-13) included for the bride a fine dress often adorned with jewels (Ps 45:14-15; Is 61:10) and other ornaments, while the bridegroom had fine clothing and wore a diadem (Sg 3:11; Is 61:10). The bride wore a veil (Gn 24:65; Sg 4:3), which was removed in the bridal chamber. This would account for Rebekah’s need to veil herself in the presence of Isaac, her fiancé (Gn 24:65), and also for the ease with which Laban was able to replace Rachel with Leah on Jacob’s wedding night (29:23-25).<\/p>\n<p>Symbolic ceremonies may sometimes have been included as part of the betrothal or wedding ceremonies, such as Ruth’s request that Boaz spread his skirt over her to indicate that he was taking her to wife (Ru 3:9). Another ritual may have been the ceremonial removal of the bride’s girdle by the groom in the nuptial chamber, which was a room or tent specially prepared for the newly married couple. The marriage was normally consummated on the first night (Gn 29:23; Tb 8:1), and the stained linen would be retained as evidence of the bride’s virginity.<\/p>\n<p>In a contrast to the elaborate procession and feasting of the marriage, divorce was simple. A man could divorce his wife if he found fault with her in any particular matter, and this right was not abolished until the 11th century <span>AD<\/span>. Divorce was discouraged, however, and gradually the procedure became more complex, being hedged about with a number of deterrents.<\/p>\n<p>As the laws regarding divorce became more complex, so the procedure became increasingly expensive. At a later time a lawyer, or sometimes a rabbi, would give advice, especially on such matters as the return of property rightly belonging to the bride or her family.<\/p>\n<p>If a bride was found to have committed adultery, the husband was thought to be entitled to a divorce. This was also the case if he even suspected her of infidelity. He could also divorce his wife if he felt that she had violated normal morality, had become apostate, or had been less than efficient in the management of her household. If a woman refused her husband his conjugal rights for a period of at least one year, she could be divorced. Other grounds for divorcing a wife included insulting behavior to a husband or his relatives, contracting an incurable disease, or refusing to accompany her husband when he moved the domicile to a new area.<\/p>\n<p>In general, the status of the wife was low. Despite the fact that she gave advice, managed the household, educated the young children, and worked alongside her husband when necessary, he was still her master, and her role was to obey. She was little more than a servant, although better than a slave, for she could not be sold even though she could be divorced.<\/p>\n<p>In the frequent figurative uses of marriage in the OT, the Hebrew people and God are referred to in terms of bride and bridegroom (Is 62:4-5; Jer 2:2). The desolation that is about to overtake Judah is contrasted by Jeremiah with the celebration of a wedding feast (Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10). Figurative forms are used again in Hosea, where God rejects the relationship with his wife, Israel (Hos 2:2), but is prepared to accept her again if she resumes her faithful practices (vv 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, John the Baptist compares his sense of joy with that of a friend of the groom at a wedding (Jn 3:29), while Jesus himself made reference to the wedding preparations in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt 25:1-12). In the story of the marriage feast (22:1-14) Christ mentions quite incidentally the fact that wedding robes were provided for the guests at such ceremonies. The theme of the Christian church as the bride of Christ occurs in such books as 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, and Revelation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JesusTeachingsonMarriageandAdultery\">Jesus’ Teachings on Marriage and Adultery<\/p>\n<p>In the realm of civil law there are changes of emphasis in Jesus’ teaching over against the OT. For example, the OT did not regard infidelity by a husband as adultery against his wife. When challenged by the Jews, Jesus said that originally God had made one wife for a man; therefore, there should be no divorce (Mk 10:2-9). Further, he stated if a man does divorce his wife and marry again, he “commits adultery against her” (v 11). Thus, Jesus made man and woman equal as regards adultery. An unfaithful husband is just as adulterous as an unfaithful wife. This revolutionary teaching struck the disciples as severe (see Mt 19:10), but it illustrates what Jesus meant when he said their righteousness must be greater than that of the Jewish leaders (5:20).<\/p>\n<p>There is a slight difference in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ teaching, which has led some scholars to argue that Jesus was not quite as strict as the above summary suggests. According to Matthew 19:9, a wife’s “unchastity” (probably some sexual misconduct) allows an aggrieved husband to divorce her and marry again. If this remark concluded the passage, this interpretation would be the simplest. However, from the context it is more likely that Jesus allowed innocent spouses to separate from their wives but not to remarry. This explains why the disciples were so shocked and why Jesus went on to speak about some who refuse to marry for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mt 19:12). This was also the way the church interpreted the passage for the first five centuries. They allowed Christians to separate but not to remarry (cf. 1 Cor 7:11).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Adultery; Civil Law and Justice; Concubinage, Concubines; Divorce; Family Life and Relations; Sex, Sexuality; Virgin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","summary_en":"MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures. The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24). Several forms of marriage are referred to in the OT, the earliest of which seems to be based on a matrilineal principle. Although there appears to be some evidence for this in the middle Bronze Age and in the...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33389,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ruth","title_en":"Book of Ruth","content_ro":"<h3>RUTH, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Message<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions (see 1 Sm 22:3-5). Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar.<\/p>\n<p>The time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled. . . .” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, or about 100 years before David’s birth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction (1:1-5)<\/h5>\n<p>Driven by famine, Elimelech, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)<\/h5>\n<p>Hearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye.<\/p>\n<p>But Ruth “clung to her” (1:18). The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage (Gn 2:24). Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments (Ru 1:16-17). In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the God of Israel and his laws. Ruth’s appeal to the God of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together.<\/p>\n<p>Their arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” (bitter). But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Reaping in the Fields of Boaz (2:1-23)<\/h5>\n<p>The first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech.<\/p>\n<p>In the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields—a provision for the poor contained in the law (Lv 19:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Ruth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favored position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men—an unorthodox arrangement.<\/p>\n<p>Ruth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she—as a foreigner—should receive such favor. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s God, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ru 2:12, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>She was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption (see discussion below). Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Relying upon the Kinsman (3:1-18)<\/h5>\n<p>Naomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span><em>,<\/em> or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain coloring to it. (1) Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one (3:12). Consequently, according to Israelite law (Dt 25:5ff.), it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died. (2) The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a God-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counseled here that is repugnant to God’s law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose.<\/p>\n<p>Boaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.<\/p>\n<h5>Redeeming the Inheritance (4:1-22)<\/h5>\n<p>Boaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” (4:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. (The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.) So Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Message\">Message<\/p>\n<p>First, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfillment in Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>A second teaching is the beauty of God’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing.<\/p>\n<p>Theologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman.<\/p>\n<p>And finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law . . . loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” (4:15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RUTH, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p>• Message<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions (see 1 Sm 22:3-5). Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar.<\/p>\n<p>The time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled. . . .” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, or about 100 years before David’s birth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Purpose\">Purpose<\/p>\n<p>The book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction (1:1-5)<\/h5>\n<p>Driven by famine, Elimelech, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)<\/h5>\n<p>Hearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye.<\/p>\n<p>But Ruth “clung to her” (1:18). The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage (Gn 2:24). Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments (Ru 1:16-17). In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the God of Israel and his laws. Ruth’s appeal to the God of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together.<\/p>\n<p>Their arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” (bitter). But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Reaping in the Fields of Boaz (2:1-23)<\/h5>\n<p>The first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech.<\/p>\n<p>In the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields—a provision for the poor contained in the law (Lv 19:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Ruth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favored position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men—an unorthodox arrangement.<\/p>\n<p>Ruth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she—as a foreigner—should receive such favor. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s God, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ru 2:12, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>She was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption (see discussion below). Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Relying upon the Kinsman (3:1-18)<\/h5>\n<p>Naomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">go’el<\/span><em>,<\/em> or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain coloring to it. (1) Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one (3:12). Consequently, according to Israelite law (Dt 25:5ff.), it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died. (2) The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a God-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counseled here that is repugnant to God’s law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose.<\/p>\n<p>Boaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.<\/p>\n<h5>Redeeming the Inheritance (4:1-22)<\/h5>\n<p>Boaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” (4:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. (The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.) So Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Message\">Message<\/p>\n<p>First, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfillment in Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>A second teaching is the beauty of God’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing.<\/p>\n<p>Theologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman.<\/p>\n<p>And finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law . . . loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” (4:15, <span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"RUTH, Book of Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Content • Message Author and Date The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not ...","summary_en":"RUTH, Book of Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Content • Message Author and Date The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not ...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39275,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zerubbabel","title_en":"Zerubbabel","content_ro":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\n<p>Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 <span>BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\n<p>Two solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\n<p>A simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\n<p>Following the edict of Cyrus in 538 <span>BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Some hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. <em>See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\n<p>Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 <span>BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\n<p>Two solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\n<p>A simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\n<p>Following the edict of Cyrus in 538 <span>BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Some hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. <em>See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","summary_en":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45148,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:5","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","summary_en":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72774,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:5","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","summary_en":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100400,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:5","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","summary_en":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128026,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:5","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:5<\/strong> The term rendered <em>duties of a brother-in-law<\/em> refers to the <span class=\"latin\" lang=\"la\">levirate<\/span> (Latin for <em>brother-in-law<\/em>) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","summary_en":"25:5 The term rendered duties of a brother-in-law refers to the levirate (Latin for brother-in-law) marriage custom. The brother of a deceased man was encouraged to marry his brother’s widow and father her children so that the name of the dead brother would not be forgotten. For examples of this custom, see Gen 38:6-11; Ruth 3:12-13; 4:1-12; Luke 20:27-33.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":10292,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Elder","title_en":"Elder","content_ro":"<h3>ELDER<\/h3>\n<p>Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder or groups of elders can also be found in the world surrounding ancient Israel and in the Greco-Roman world of the NT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The elder, or the institution of elders, is closely linked with the tribal system. Tribes were composed of clans, and clans of large, extended family units. By virtue of age and function in a patriarchal society, the father of a family ruled. This fact of age, as well as the wisdom and maturity invested in older persons, is undoubtedly the origin of the authority that these elders exercised. A clan was ruled by the heads of the families constituting it, forming a council of elders. In time of war, each clan furnished a contingent; these were led by a chief, probably chosen from the ranks of the elders.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s premonarchy period, local administration and judicial action was largely in the hands of those elders. In the exodus narrative, it was the elders of Israel (heads of families) who were instructed by Moses concerning the first Passover meal (Ex 12:21-22). It was these elders who, in Exodus 18:12, met with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and from whose ranks were chosen worthy representatives to assist Moses in the interpretation of the law of God and the administration of justice (18:13-23). Similarly, according to Numbers 11:16-17, Moses was instructed by God to select 70 men from among the elders of Israel to assist him in leadership of the people. In this latter account, the elders were marked by a special endowment of God’s Spirit. In the former the elders—chosen as coadministrators with Moses—were those known to be trustworthy.<\/p>\n<p>A central function of elders was the administration of justice. They were the “judges,” who sat “in the gate,” the traditional courtroom of ancient villages and towns. Here disputes and trials were settled by the elders, and community affairs were discussed and decisions made (Gn 23:10, 18; Jb 29:7; Prv 24:7; 31:23). The preservation and application of the law was clearly in the hands of elders who sat at the gate of the town (Dt 19:12; 21:19; 22:15; 25:7-10). Ruth 4:1-12 provides an excellent description of such a process.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, local administration and judicial authority continued to be invested in councils of elders. At the end of Saul’s reign, David sent messages and gifts to the elders of the towns of Judah (1 Sm 30:26), obviously recognizing that his efficient rule would depend on their goodwill and allegiance. In the time of Jehu (2 Kgs 10:5), we hear of elders in Samaria, side by side with a governor and master of the palace. To facilitate her plot against Naboth, Jezebel wrote instructions to the elders and nobles of Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:8-11). Again, Josiah convened the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to hear the reading of the law and to enter with him into a new covenant of obedience (2 Kgs 23:1). It is clear that the elders of Israel were now responsible for the application of the law within their jurisdictions. Besides administrative and judicial functions, elders also assumed cultic roles (Ex 24:1, 9; Lv 4:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The institution of the elders survived the collapse of the royal institutions. Elders were present during the exile (Ez 8:1; 14:1; 20:1-3) as well as after the return (e.g., Ezr 10:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJudaismoftheNewTestamentPeriod\">In Judaism of the New Testament Period<\/p>\n<p>While use of the title “elder” to designate officers of various Greek cult associations and village magistrates may have influenced the development of community structure in the gentile churches, the Christian office (or function) of elder stems from a very similar institution within Judaism. In the first three Gospels and in Acts there are numerous references to elders as functionaries within the communal and religious life of Judaism. Generally they are mentioned together with one or more other groups of functionaries (quoting the <span>rsv<\/span>): “elders and chief priests and scribes” (Mt 16:21); “chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23; 26:3, 47); “scribes and elders” (26:57; 27:41); “chief priests and elders” (27:1, 3, 12, 20); “rulers and elders and scribes” (Acts 4:5); “rulers of the people and elders” (v 8). From these NT passages we cannot determine what exactly their functions were, or how they differed from rulers or scribes. However, the duties of Jewish elders are clearly described in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> in the Mishnah, as well as in the community rule books of the Qumran ascetics, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Each Jewish community had its council of elders, who had general administrative oversight and represented the community in relations with Roman authorities. Their primary duty was judicial. They were custodians of the law and its traditional interpretations (see Mt 15:2), and they were charged with both its enforcement and the punishment of offenders. The most important of these councils of elders was the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, a group of 71 men who acted as the final court for the entire nation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheChristianCommunity\">In the Christian Community<\/p>\n<p>Since the primitive church eventually regarded itself as the new Israel (Mt 21:43; Gal 6:16), it is easy to see why it should gradually adopt the institution of elders. Though it is difficult to make out the order that prevailed in the first Christian communities, because it apparently varied according to place and time in both form and extent, the presence and functioning of elders was part of the reality of early church life.<\/p>\n<p>In Luke’s account of the origin and spread of Christianity, the elders are already present in the church at Jerusalem. In Acts we see Christians at Antioch sending famine relief “to the elders [of the Judean churches] by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30). On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders in every church” (14:23). Later, Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem “to the apostles and elders” about the question of circumcision of gentile Christians (15:2), and were “welcomed by the church, and the apostles, and the elders” (v 4), who gathered to hear the case and resolve the issue (vv 6-23).<\/p>\n<p>Who these elders were, and how they were chosen, we are not told. It seems possible to argue, on the basis of Jewish precedent, that age and prominence gave them the privilege of rendering special service within the community. Veneration for age was a deeply rooted sentiment among Jews, and the name “presbyter” (elder) was derived from Jewish usage. It is also possible that, like the appointment of “the seven” for special service by the laying on of hands (6:1-6), the first elders in the Jerusalem church were appointed by the apostles. Apparently they functioned in the Christian community in ways comparable to the elders in the Jewish communities and the Sanhedrin (11:30; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>Paul apparently continued the practice among the gentile churches, though elders are not mentioned in the earliest Pauline writings. They are mentioned only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tm 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5). On his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul summoned the elders of the church at Ephesus to Miletus (Acts 20:17) to bid them farewell, and to instruct them to be faithful in their task of overseeing and caring for the Christian flock, the church of God (20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Although elders are not explicitly mentioned in Paul’s early letters, they may have been among the leaders who presided over the congregations (Rom 12:8; 1 Thes 5:12-13). Philippians 1:1 certainly reveals a definite stratification of leadership (“overseers and deacons”) within a young Pauline congregation. And 1 Timothy 5:17, reflecting what is often considered a later phase in the development of church government, attributes the functions of preaching and teaching to the ruling elders. Further, that Christian elders exercised pastoral functions may be inferred from 1 Peter 5:1-5 and James 5:14.<\/p>\n<p>There is one passage where we find a possible identification of an apostle (Peter) as also being an elder: “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pt 5:1a, <span>rsv<\/span>). This text may indicate that elders were appointed and functioned as extensions of apostolic servanthood. Paul’s practice of appointing elders in the churches before his departure may support such a suggestion. The fact that in the tradition of the later church the “elder” of 2 and 3 John was identified as the apostle John points in a similar direction. Though such an identification is implicit, the apostles could function as elders but not the other way around.<\/p>\n<p>The elders had several functions. For example, 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders as involved in preaching and teaching; James 5:14 sees them involved in a healing ministry; 1 Peter 5:2 exhorts them to tend the flock. Thus, the prophets and teachers who led the church at Antioch (according to Acts 13:1-3) may well have been the elders of this community.<\/p>\n<p>The diaconate, too, whose roots are to be seen in the selection of “the seven” for service to those in need (Acts 6:1-3), was not restricted to purely external service. Two of these men, whom Luke introduces to us as deacons, appear at the same time as evangelists who were particularly effective as preachers of the Word, performers of miracles, expounders of the Scriptures (Stephen, Acts 6:8-10; Philip, Acts 8:4-13, 26-40).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in the later church bishops and elders were clearly distinguished, the NT reflects an early period when these offices were virtually synonymous. In Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus (Acts 20), addressed specifically to the Ephesian church elders (v 17), he tells them that the Holy Spirit has made them “overseers, to care for the church of God” (v 28). Whether “overseer” is used here in the later technical sense of bishop or the more general sense of guardian is not clear. However, in Titus 1:5-7, the elders of verse 5 are clearly the same persons as the bishops of verse 7. Again, the bishops of Philippians 1:1 are likely to be understood as the elders appointed by Paul upon his leaving this mission station.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear that church government in the NT period was still relatively fluid, but the seeds for the later structures were surely planted. The institution of the elders, on the basis of Jewish precedent, was central. The episcopate (overseers\/bishops) probably emerged out of the presbyterian (elders), one elder being appointed as overseer by the entire council of elders.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bishop; Deacon, Deaconess; Pastor; Presbyter; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ELDER<\/h3>\n<p>Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder or groups of elders can also be found in the world surrounding ancient Israel and in the Greco-Roman world of the NT period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The elder, or the institution of elders, is closely linked with the tribal system. Tribes were composed of clans, and clans of large, extended family units. By virtue of age and function in a patriarchal society, the father of a family ruled. This fact of age, as well as the wisdom and maturity invested in older persons, is undoubtedly the origin of the authority that these elders exercised. A clan was ruled by the heads of the families constituting it, forming a council of elders. In time of war, each clan furnished a contingent; these were led by a chief, probably chosen from the ranks of the elders.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel’s premonarchy period, local administration and judicial action was largely in the hands of those elders. In the exodus narrative, it was the elders of Israel (heads of families) who were instructed by Moses concerning the first Passover meal (Ex 12:21-22). It was these elders who, in Exodus 18:12, met with Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, and from whose ranks were chosen worthy representatives to assist Moses in the interpretation of the law of God and the administration of justice (18:13-23). Similarly, according to Numbers 11:16-17, Moses was instructed by God to select 70 men from among the elders of Israel to assist him in leadership of the people. In this latter account, the elders were marked by a special endowment of God’s Spirit. In the former the elders—chosen as coadministrators with Moses—were those known to be trustworthy.<\/p>\n<p>A central function of elders was the administration of justice. They were the “judges,” who sat “in the gate,” the traditional courtroom of ancient villages and towns. Here disputes and trials were settled by the elders, and community affairs were discussed and decisions made (Gn 23:10, 18; Jb 29:7; Prv 24:7; 31:23). The preservation and application of the law was clearly in the hands of elders who sat at the gate of the town (Dt 19:12; 21:19; 22:15; 25:7-10). Ruth 4:1-12 provides an excellent description of such a process.<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the monarchy, local administration and judicial authority continued to be invested in councils of elders. At the end of Saul’s reign, David sent messages and gifts to the elders of the towns of Judah (1 Sm 30:26), obviously recognizing that his efficient rule would depend on their goodwill and allegiance. In the time of Jehu (2 Kgs 10:5), we hear of elders in Samaria, side by side with a governor and master of the palace. To facilitate her plot against Naboth, Jezebel wrote instructions to the elders and nobles of Jezreel (1 Kgs 21:8-11). Again, Josiah convened the elders of Judah and Jerusalem to hear the reading of the law and to enter with him into a new covenant of obedience (2 Kgs 23:1). It is clear that the elders of Israel were now responsible for the application of the law within their jurisdictions. Besides administrative and judicial functions, elders also assumed cultic roles (Ex 24:1, 9; Lv 4:14-15).<\/p>\n<p>The institution of the elders survived the collapse of the royal institutions. Elders were present during the exile (Ez 8:1; 14:1; 20:1-3) as well as after the return (e.g., Ezr 10:16).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InJudaismoftheNewTestamentPeriod\">In Judaism of the New Testament Period<\/p>\n<p>While use of the title “elder” to designate officers of various Greek cult associations and village magistrates may have influenced the development of community structure in the gentile churches, the Christian office (or function) of elder stems from a very similar institution within Judaism. In the first three Gospels and in Acts there are numerous references to elders as functionaries within the communal and religious life of Judaism. Generally they are mentioned together with one or more other groups of functionaries (quoting the <span>rsv<\/span>): “elders and chief priests and scribes” (Mt 16:21); “chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23; 26:3, 47); “scribes and elders” (26:57; 27:41); “chief priests and elders” (27:1, 3, 12, 20); “rulers and elders and scribes” (Acts 4:5); “rulers of the people and elders” (v 8). From these NT passages we cannot determine what exactly their functions were, or how they differed from rulers or scribes. However, the duties of Jewish elders are clearly described in the tractate <em>Sanhedrin<\/em> in the Mishnah, as well as in the community rule books of the Qumran ascetics, discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.<\/p>\n<p>Each Jewish community had its council of elders, who had general administrative oversight and represented the community in relations with Roman authorities. Their primary duty was judicial. They were custodians of the law and its traditional interpretations (see Mt 15:2), and they were charged with both its enforcement and the punishment of offenders. The most important of these councils of elders was the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, a group of 71 men who acted as the final court for the entire nation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheChristianCommunity\">In the Christian Community<\/p>\n<p>Since the primitive church eventually regarded itself as the new Israel (Mt 21:43; Gal 6:16), it is easy to see why it should gradually adopt the institution of elders. Though it is difficult to make out the order that prevailed in the first Christian communities, because it apparently varied according to place and time in both form and extent, the presence and functioning of elders was part of the reality of early church life.<\/p>\n<p>In Luke’s account of the origin and spread of Christianity, the elders are already present in the church at Jerusalem. In Acts we see Christians at Antioch sending famine relief “to the elders [of the Judean churches] by Barnabas and Saul” (Acts 11:30). On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders in every church” (14:23). Later, Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem “to the apostles and elders” about the question of circumcision of gentile Christians (15:2), and were “welcomed by the church, and the apostles, and the elders” (v 4), who gathered to hear the case and resolve the issue (vv 6-23).<\/p>\n<p>Who these elders were, and how they were chosen, we are not told. It seems possible to argue, on the basis of Jewish precedent, that age and prominence gave them the privilege of rendering special service within the community. Veneration for age was a deeply rooted sentiment among Jews, and the name “presbyter” (elder) was derived from Jewish usage. It is also possible that, like the appointment of “the seven” for special service by the laying on of hands (6:1-6), the first elders in the Jerusalem church were appointed by the apostles. Apparently they functioned in the Christian community in ways comparable to the elders in the Jewish communities and the Sanhedrin (11:30; 15:2-6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>Paul apparently continued the practice among the gentile churches, though elders are not mentioned in the earliest Pauline writings. They are mentioned only in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tm 5:17, 19; Ti 1:5). On his last journey to Jerusalem, Paul summoned the elders of the church at Ephesus to Miletus (Acts 20:17) to bid them farewell, and to instruct them to be faithful in their task of overseeing and caring for the Christian flock, the church of God (20:28).<\/p>\n<p>Although elders are not explicitly mentioned in Paul’s early letters, they may have been among the leaders who presided over the congregations (Rom 12:8; 1 Thes 5:12-13). Philippians 1:1 certainly reveals a definite stratification of leadership (“overseers and deacons”) within a young Pauline congregation. And 1 Timothy 5:17, reflecting what is often considered a later phase in the development of church government, attributes the functions of preaching and teaching to the ruling elders. Further, that Christian elders exercised pastoral functions may be inferred from 1 Peter 5:1-5 and James 5:14.<\/p>\n<p>There is one passage where we find a possible identification of an apostle (Peter) as also being an elder: “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Pt 5:1a, <span>rsv<\/span>). This text may indicate that elders were appointed and functioned as extensions of apostolic servanthood. Paul’s practice of appointing elders in the churches before his departure may support such a suggestion. The fact that in the tradition of the later church the “elder” of 2 and 3 John was identified as the apostle John points in a similar direction. Though such an identification is implicit, the apostles could function as elders but not the other way around.<\/p>\n<p>The elders had several functions. For example, 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders as involved in preaching and teaching; James 5:14 sees them involved in a healing ministry; 1 Peter 5:2 exhorts them to tend the flock. Thus, the prophets and teachers who led the church at Antioch (according to Acts 13:1-3) may well have been the elders of this community.<\/p>\n<p>The diaconate, too, whose roots are to be seen in the selection of “the seven” for service to those in need (Acts 6:1-3), was not restricted to purely external service. Two of these men, whom Luke introduces to us as deacons, appear at the same time as evangelists who were particularly effective as preachers of the Word, performers of miracles, expounders of the Scriptures (Stephen, Acts 6:8-10; Philip, Acts 8:4-13, 26-40).<\/p>\n<p>Whereas in the later church bishops and elders were clearly distinguished, the NT reflects an early period when these offices were virtually synonymous. In Paul’s farewell speech at Miletus (Acts 20), addressed specifically to the Ephesian church elders (v 17), he tells them that the Holy Spirit has made them “overseers, to care for the church of God” (v 28). Whether “overseer” is used here in the later technical sense of bishop or the more general sense of guardian is not clear. However, in Titus 1:5-7, the elders of verse 5 are clearly the same persons as the bishops of verse 7. Again, the bishops of Philippians 1:1 are likely to be understood as the elders appointed by Paul upon his leaving this mission station.<\/p>\n<p>It is clear that church government in the NT period was still relatively fluid, but the seeds for the later structures were surely planted. The institution of the elders, on the basis of Jewish precedent, was central. The episcopate (overseers\/bishops) probably emerged out of the presbyterian (elders), one elder being appointed as overseer by the entire council of elders.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bishop; Deacon, Deaconess; Pastor; Presbyter; Spiritual Gifts.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ELDER Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder ...","summary_en":"ELDER Person who, by virtue of position in the family, clan, or tribe; or by reason of personality, prowess, stature, or influence; or through a process of appointment and ordination, exercised leadership and judicial functions in both religious and secular spheres in the ancient world, both among biblical and nonbiblical peoples. The roots of the development of the presbytery (group of elders) in the NT and postapostolic church originate in Judaism and the OT, though the figure of the elder ...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":45149,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","summary_en":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72775,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","summary_en":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100401,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","summary_en":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128027,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:9","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:9<\/strong> <em>pull his sandal from his foot:<\/em> Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • <em>spit in his face:<\/em> This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","summary_en":"25:9 pull his sandal from his foot: Using footwear, which touched the ground, the brother-in-law showed that he relinquished any claim to his dead brother’s estate (Ruth 4:7). • spit in his face: This is an almost universal gesture of utter contempt (see Num 12:14).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":45150,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","summary_en":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72776,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","summary_en":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100402,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","summary_en":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128028,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:10","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:10<\/strong> <em>his family will be referred to:<\/em> If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","summary_en":"25:10 his family will be referred to: If a man refused to perpetuate his brother’s name, he would be spoken of in a derogatory way.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":45151,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","summary_en":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72777,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","summary_en":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100403,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","summary_en":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128029,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:11","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:11","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:11-12<\/strong> <em>cut off her hand:<\/em> The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or <em>cutting off<\/em> from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (<em>lex talionis;<\/em> see study note on 19:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","summary_en":"25:11-12 cut off her hand: The woman’s act would emasculate the man, depriving him of (or cutting off from him) any offspring. As with the previous law (25:9), the punishment fits the crime (lex talionis; see study note on 19:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":15867,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hebrew Language","title_en":"Hebrew Language","content_ro":"<h3>HEBREW LANGUAGE<\/h3>\n<p>Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and History<\/p>\n<p>• Family of Languages<\/p>\n<p>• Character<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<p>• Style<\/p>\n<p>• Legacy<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandHistory\">Origin and History<\/p>\n<p>In the Middle Ages a common view was that Hebrew was the primitive language of humankind. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was still referred to as “the mother of all languages.” Linguistic scholarship has now made this theory untenable.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew is actually one of several Canaanite dialects that included Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite. Other Canaanite dialects (for example, Ammonite) existed but have left insufficient inscriptions for scholarly investigation. Such dialects were already present in the land of Canaan before its conquest by the Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Until about 1974, the oldest witnesses to Canaanite language were found in the Ugarit and Amarna records dating from the 14th and 15th centuries <span>BC<\/span>. A few Canaanite words and expressions appeared in earlier Egyptian records, but the origin of Canaanite has been uncertain. Between 1974 and 1976, however, nearly 17,000 tablets were dug up at Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in northern Syria, written in a previously unknown Semitic dialect. Because they possibly date back to 2400 <span>BC<\/span> (perhaps even earlier), many scholars think that language may be the “Old Canaanite” that gave rise to Hebrew. By 1977, when another 1,000 tablets were unearthed, only about 100 inscriptions from Ebla had been reported on. Languages change over a long period of time. For example, the English used in the time of Alfred the Great (ninth century <span>AD<\/span>) seems almost like a foreign language to contemporary English speakers. Although Hebrew was no exception to the general principle, like other Semitic languages it remained remarkably stable over many centuries. Poems such as the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) tended to preserve the language’s oldest form. Changes that took place later in the long history of the language are shown in the presence of archaic words (often preserved in poetic language) and a general difference in style. For example, the book of Job reflects a more archaic style than the book of Esther.<\/p>\n<p>Various Hebrew dialects apparently existed side by side in OT times, as reflected in the episode involving the pronunciation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth\/sibboleth” (Jgs 12:4-6). It seems that the Israelites east of the Jordan pronounced the initial letter with a strong “sh” sound, while those in Canaan gave it the simple “s” sound. Scholars have also identified features of Hebrew that could be described as reflecting the northern or southern parts of the country.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FamilyofLanguages\">Family of Languages<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages; these languages were used from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains east of the Euphrates River valley, and from Armenia (Turkey) in the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian peninsula. Semitic languages are classified as Southern (Arabic and Ethiopic), Eastern (Akkadian), and Northwestern (Aramaic, Syriac, and Canaanite—Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Character\">Character<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew’s vividness, conciseness, and simplicity make the language difficult to translate fully. It is amazingly concise and direct. For example, Psalm 23 contains 55 words; most translations require about twice that many to translate it. The first two lines, with slashes separating the individual Hebrew words in the original, read:<\/p>\n<p>The Lord\/[is] my shepherd\/<\/p>\n<p>I shall want\/not<\/p>\n<p>Thus eight English words are required to translate four Hebrew words.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew does not use separate, distinct expressions for every shade of thought. Someone has said, “The Semites have been the quarries whose great rough blocks the Greeks have trimmed, polished, and fitted together. The former gave religion; the latter philosophy.”<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.<\/p>\n<p>Many profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewScriptandGrammar\">Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<h5>Alphabet and Script<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 consonants; signs for vowels were devised and added late in the language’s history. The origin of the alphabet is unknown. The oldest examples of a Canaanite alphabet were preserved in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet of the 14th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The old style of writing the letters is called the Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script. It is the predecessor of the Greek and other Western alphabets. The script used in modern Hebrew Bibles (Aramaic or square script) came into vogue after Israel’s exile into Babylon (sixth century <span>BC<\/span>). The older style was still used sporadically in the early Christian era on coins and for writing God’s name (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Hebrew has always been written right to left.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Consonants<\/h5>\n<p>The Canaanite alphabet of the Phoenician and Moabite languages had 22 consonants. The older Canaanite language reflected in Ugaritic had more consonants. Arabic also preserves some Old Canaanite consonants found in Ugaritic but missing in Hebrew.<\/p>\n<h5>Vowels<\/h5>\n<p>In the original consonantal Hebrew script, vowels were simply understood by the writer or reader. On the basis of tradition and context, the reader would supply whatever vowels were needed, much as is done in English abbreviations (“bldg.” for “building”; “blvd.” for “boulevard”). After the collapse of the nation in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem led to Hebrew’s becoming a “dead language,” no longer widely spoken. Loss of traditional pronunciation and understanding then became more of a possibility, so Jewish scribes felt a need for permanently establishing the vowel sounds.<\/p>\n<p>First, vowel letters called “mothers of reading” <em>(matres lectionis)<\/em> were added. These were consonants used especially to indicate long vowels. These were added before the Christian era, as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal.<\/p>\n<p>Later (about the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>), the scribes called Masoretes added vowel signs to indicate short vowels. At least three different systems of vowel signs were employed at different times and places. The text used today represents the system devised by Masoretic scribes who worked in the city of Tiberias. The vowels, each of which may be long or short, are indicated by dots or dashes placed above or below the consonants. Certain combinations of dots and dashes represent very short vowel sounds, or “half-vowels.”<\/p>\n<h5>Linkage<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew joins together many words that in Western languages would be written separately. Some prepositions (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">be<\/span>-, “in”; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">le<\/span>-, “to”; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ke<\/span>-, “like”) are prefixed directly to the noun or verb that they introduce, as are the definite article <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ha<\/span>-, “the” and the conjunction <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">wa<\/span>-, “and.” Suffixes are used for pronouns, either in the possessive or accusative relationship. The same word may simultaneously have both a prefix and a suffix.<\/p>\n<h5>Nouns<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew has no neuter gender; everything is masculine or feminine. Inanimate objects may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the formation or character of the word. Usually, abstract ideas or words indicating a group are feminine. Nouns are derived from roots and are formed in various ways, either by vowel modification or by adding prefixes or suffixes to the root. Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew plural is formed by adding -<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">im<\/span> for masculine nouns <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">seraphim, cherubim<\/span><em>)<\/em> and -<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">oth<\/span> for feminine nouns.<\/p>\n<p>Three original case endings indicating nominative, genitive, and accusative have dropped away during the evolution of Hebrew. To compensate for the lack of case endings, Hebrew resorts to various indicators. Indirect objects are indicated by the preposition <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">le<\/span>-, “to”; direct objects by the objective sign <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’eth<\/span><em>;<\/em> the genitive relationship by putting the word before the genitive in the “construct state,” or shortened form.<\/p>\n<h5>Adjectives<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew is deficient in adjectives. “A double heart” is indicated in the original Hebrew by “a heart and a heart” (Ps 12:2), and “two differing weights” is actually “a stone and a stone” (Dt 25:13); “the whole royal family” is “the seed of the kingdom” (2 Kgs 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>Adjectives that do exist in Hebrew have no comparative or superlative forms. Relationship is indicated by the preposition “from.” “Better than you” is expressed literally in Hebrew “good from you.” “The serpent was more subtle than any other beast” is literally “the serpent was subtle from every beast” (Gn 3:1). The superlative is expressed by several different constructions. The idea “very deep” is literally “deep, deep” (Eccl 7:24); the “best song” is literally “song of songs” (compare “king of kings”); “holiest” is literally “holy, holy, holy” (Is 6:3).<\/p>\n<h5>Verbs<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew verbs are formed from a root usually consisting of three letters. From such roots, verbal forms are developed by a change of vowels or by adding prefixes or suffixes. The root consonants provide the semantic backbone of the language and give a stability of meaning not characteristic of Western languages. The vowels are quite flexible, giving Hebrew considerable elasticity.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew verb usage is not characterized by precise definition of tenses. Hebrew tenses, especially in poetry, are largely determined by context. The two tense formations are the perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The imperfect is ambiguous. It represents the indicative mood (present, past, future) but may also represent such moods as the imperative, optative, and jussive or cohortative. A distinctive usage of the perfect tense is the “prophetic perfect,” where the perfect form represents a future event considered so sure that it is expressed as past (e.g., see Is 5:13, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Style\">Style<\/p>\n<h5>Vocabulary<\/h5>\n<p>Most Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”<\/p>\n<p>Abstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, <span>kjv<\/span>). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”<\/p>\n<p>Some translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”<\/p>\n<p>Further ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).<\/p>\n<h5>Syntax<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew syntax is relatively uncomplicated. Few subordinating conjunctions (“if,” “when,” “because,” etc.) are used; sentences are usually coordinated by using the simple conjunction “and.” English translations of biblical texts generally try to show the logical connection between successive sentences, even though it is not always clear. In Genesis 1:2–3:1, all but three of the 56 verses begin with “and,” yet the <span>nlt<\/span> translates that conjunction variously as “then” (1:3), “so” (v 27), “so” (2:1), and “instead” (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew style is enlivened by use of direct discourse. The narrator does not simply state that “such and such a person said that . . .” (indirect discourse). Instead, the parties speak for themselves (direct discourse), creating a freshness that remains even after repeated reading.<\/p>\n<h5>Poetry<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew poetry uses a variety of rhetorical devices. Some of them—such as assonance, alliteration, and acrostics—can be appreciated only in the original Hebrew. But parallelism, the most important characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is evident even in English translation. Among the many forms of parallelism possible, four common categories exist: (1) synonymous, a repeating style in which parallel lines say the same thing in different words; (2) antithetic, a contrasting style in which contrary thoughts are expressed; (3) completive, with a completing parallel line filling out the thought of the first; (4) climactic, in which an ascending parallel line picks up something from the first line and repeats it. Numerous other forms of parallelism enrich Hebrew poetry. The possible varations of parallelism are almost endless.<\/p>\n<h5>Figures of Speech<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew abounds in expressive figures of speech based on the Hebrew people’s character and way of life. Certain odd but well-known expressions found in English literature come from the Hebrew style, like “apple of his eye” (Dt 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prv 7:2; Zec 2:8) and “skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20). Some of the more striking Hebrew modes of expression are hard to transfer into English, such as “to uncover the ear,” meaning “to disclose, reveal.” Others are more familiar, like “to stiffen the neck” for “to be stubborn, rebellious”; “to bend or incline the ear” for “to listen closely.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Legacy\">Legacy<\/p>\n<p>English and a number of other modern languages have been enriched by Hebrew. English even contains a number of Hebrew “loan words.” Some of these have had wide influence (“amen,” “hallelujah,” “jubilee”). Many Hebrew proper nouns are used in modern languages for persons and places, such as David, Jonathan\/John, Miriam\/Mary, Bethlehem (the name of several towns and cities in the United States).<\/p>\n<p>Many common Hebrew expressions have been unconsciously accepted into English figures of speech, as in “mouth of the cave” and “face of the earth.” Some figures, such as “east of Eden,” have been used as titles for books and films.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEBREW LANGUAGE<\/h3>\n<p>Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Origin and History<\/p>\n<p>• Family of Languages<\/p>\n<p>• Character<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<p>• Style<\/p>\n<p>• Legacy<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OriginandHistory\">Origin and History<\/p>\n<p>In the Middle Ages a common view was that Hebrew was the primitive language of humankind. Even in colonial America, Hebrew was still referred to as “the mother of all languages.” Linguistic scholarship has now made this theory untenable.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew is actually one of several Canaanite dialects that included Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite. Other Canaanite dialects (for example, Ammonite) existed but have left insufficient inscriptions for scholarly investigation. Such dialects were already present in the land of Canaan before its conquest by the Israelites.<\/p>\n<p>Until about 1974, the oldest witnesses to Canaanite language were found in the Ugarit and Amarna records dating from the 14th and 15th centuries <span>BC<\/span>. A few Canaanite words and expressions appeared in earlier Egyptian records, but the origin of Canaanite has been uncertain. Between 1974 and 1976, however, nearly 17,000 tablets were dug up at Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) in northern Syria, written in a previously unknown Semitic dialect. Because they possibly date back to 2400 <span>BC<\/span> (perhaps even earlier), many scholars think that language may be the “Old Canaanite” that gave rise to Hebrew. By 1977, when another 1,000 tablets were unearthed, only about 100 inscriptions from Ebla had been reported on. Languages change over a long period of time. For example, the English used in the time of Alfred the Great (ninth century <span>AD<\/span>) seems almost like a foreign language to contemporary English speakers. Although Hebrew was no exception to the general principle, like other Semitic languages it remained remarkably stable over many centuries. Poems such as the Song of Deborah (Jgs 5) tended to preserve the language’s oldest form. Changes that took place later in the long history of the language are shown in the presence of archaic words (often preserved in poetic language) and a general difference in style. For example, the book of Job reflects a more archaic style than the book of Esther.<\/p>\n<p>Various Hebrew dialects apparently existed side by side in OT times, as reflected in the episode involving the pronunciation of the Hebrew word “shibboleth\/sibboleth” (Jgs 12:4-6). It seems that the Israelites east of the Jordan pronounced the initial letter with a strong “sh” sound, while those in Canaan gave it the simple “s” sound. Scholars have also identified features of Hebrew that could be described as reflecting the northern or southern parts of the country.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FamilyofLanguages\">Family of Languages<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew belongs to the Semitic family of languages; these languages were used from the Mediterranean Sea to the mountains east of the Euphrates River valley, and from Armenia (Turkey) in the north to the southern extremity of the Arabian peninsula. Semitic languages are classified as Southern (Arabic and Ethiopic), Eastern (Akkadian), and Northwestern (Aramaic, Syriac, and Canaanite—Hebrew, Phoenician, Ugaritic, and Moabite).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Character\">Character<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew, like the other early Semitic languages, concentrates on observation more than reflection. That is, things are generally observed according to their appearance as phenomena, not analyzed as to their inward being or essence. Effects are observed but not traced through a series of causes.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew’s vividness, conciseness, and simplicity make the language difficult to translate fully. It is amazingly concise and direct. For example, Psalm 23 contains 55 words; most translations require about twice that many to translate it. The first two lines, with slashes separating the individual Hebrew words in the original, read:<\/p>\n<p>The Lord\/[is] my shepherd\/<\/p>\n<p>I shall want\/not<\/p>\n<p>Thus eight English words are required to translate four Hebrew words.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew does not use separate, distinct expressions for every shade of thought. Someone has said, “The Semites have been the quarries whose great rough blocks the Greeks have trimmed, polished, and fitted together. The former gave religion; the latter philosophy.”<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew is a pictorial language in which the past is not merely described but verbally painted. Not just a landscape is presented but a moving panorama. The course of events is reenacted in the mind’s sight. (Note the frequent use of “behold,” a Hebraism carried over to the NT.) Such common Hebraic expressions as “he arose and went,” “he opened his lips and spoke,” “he lifted up his eyes and saw,” and “he lifted up his voice and wept” illustrate the pictorial strength of the language.<\/p>\n<p>Many profound theological expressions of the OT are tightly bound up with Hebrew language and grammar. Even the most sacred name of God himself, “the <span>Lord<\/span>” (Yahweh), is directly related to the Hebrew verb “to be” (or perhaps “to cause to be”). Many other names of persons and places in the OT can best be understood only with a working knowledge of Hebrew.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewScriptandGrammar\">Hebrew Script and Grammar<\/p>\n<h5>Alphabet and Script<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew alphabet consists of 22 consonants; signs for vowels were devised and added late in the language’s history. The origin of the alphabet is unknown. The oldest examples of a Canaanite alphabet were preserved in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet of the 14th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The old style of writing the letters is called the Phoenician or paleo-Hebrew script. It is the predecessor of the Greek and other Western alphabets. The script used in modern Hebrew Bibles (Aramaic or square script) came into vogue after Israel’s exile into Babylon (sixth century <span>BC<\/span>). The older style was still used sporadically in the early Christian era on coins and for writing God’s name (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Hebrew has always been written right to left.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Consonants<\/h5>\n<p>The Canaanite alphabet of the Phoenician and Moabite languages had 22 consonants. The older Canaanite language reflected in Ugaritic had more consonants. Arabic also preserves some Old Canaanite consonants found in Ugaritic but missing in Hebrew.<\/p>\n<h5>Vowels<\/h5>\n<p>In the original consonantal Hebrew script, vowels were simply understood by the writer or reader. On the basis of tradition and context, the reader would supply whatever vowels were needed, much as is done in English abbreviations (“bldg.” for “building”; “blvd.” for “boulevard”). After the collapse of the nation in <span>AD<\/span> 70, the dispersion of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem led to Hebrew’s becoming a “dead language,” no longer widely spoken. Loss of traditional pronunciation and understanding then became more of a possibility, so Jewish scribes felt a need for permanently establishing the vowel sounds.<\/p>\n<p>First, vowel letters called “mothers of reading” <em>(matres lectionis)<\/em> were added. These were consonants used especially to indicate long vowels. These were added before the Christian era, as the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal.<\/p>\n<p>Later (about the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>), the scribes called Masoretes added vowel signs to indicate short vowels. At least three different systems of vowel signs were employed at different times and places. The text used today represents the system devised by Masoretic scribes who worked in the city of Tiberias. The vowels, each of which may be long or short, are indicated by dots or dashes placed above or below the consonants. Certain combinations of dots and dashes represent very short vowel sounds, or “half-vowels.”<\/p>\n<h5>Linkage<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew joins together many words that in Western languages would be written separately. Some prepositions (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">be<\/span>-, “in”; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">le<\/span>-, “to”; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ke<\/span>-, “like”) are prefixed directly to the noun or verb that they introduce, as are the definite article <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ha<\/span>-, “the” and the conjunction <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">wa<\/span>-, “and.” Suffixes are used for pronouns, either in the possessive or accusative relationship. The same word may simultaneously have both a prefix and a suffix.<\/p>\n<h5>Nouns<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew has no neuter gender; everything is masculine or feminine. Inanimate objects may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the formation or character of the word. Usually, abstract ideas or words indicating a group are feminine. Nouns are derived from roots and are formed in various ways, either by vowel modification or by adding prefixes or suffixes to the root. Contrary to Greek and many Western languages, compound nouns are not characteristic of Hebrew.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew plural is formed by adding -<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">im<\/span> for masculine nouns <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">seraphim, cherubim<\/span><em>)<\/em> and -<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">oth<\/span> for feminine nouns.<\/p>\n<p>Three original case endings indicating nominative, genitive, and accusative have dropped away during the evolution of Hebrew. To compensate for the lack of case endings, Hebrew resorts to various indicators. Indirect objects are indicated by the preposition <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">le<\/span>-, “to”; direct objects by the objective sign <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">’eth<\/span><em>;<\/em> the genitive relationship by putting the word before the genitive in the “construct state,” or shortened form.<\/p>\n<h5>Adjectives<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew is deficient in adjectives. “A double heart” is indicated in the original Hebrew by “a heart and a heart” (Ps 12:2), and “two differing weights” is actually “a stone and a stone” (Dt 25:13); “the whole royal family” is “the seed of the kingdom” (2 Kgs 11:1).<\/p>\n<p>Adjectives that do exist in Hebrew have no comparative or superlative forms. Relationship is indicated by the preposition “from.” “Better than you” is expressed literally in Hebrew “good from you.” “The serpent was more subtle than any other beast” is literally “the serpent was subtle from every beast” (Gn 3:1). The superlative is expressed by several different constructions. The idea “very deep” is literally “deep, deep” (Eccl 7:24); the “best song” is literally “song of songs” (compare “king of kings”); “holiest” is literally “holy, holy, holy” (Is 6:3).<\/p>\n<h5>Verbs<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew verbs are formed from a root usually consisting of three letters. From such roots, verbal forms are developed by a change of vowels or by adding prefixes or suffixes. The root consonants provide the semantic backbone of the language and give a stability of meaning not characteristic of Western languages. The vowels are quite flexible, giving Hebrew considerable elasticity.<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew verb usage is not characterized by precise definition of tenses. Hebrew tenses, especially in poetry, are largely determined by context. The two tense formations are the perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incomplete action). The imperfect is ambiguous. It represents the indicative mood (present, past, future) but may also represent such moods as the imperative, optative, and jussive or cohortative. A distinctive usage of the perfect tense is the “prophetic perfect,” where the perfect form represents a future event considered so sure that it is expressed as past (e.g., see Is 5:13, <span>kjv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Style\">Style<\/p>\n<h5>Vocabulary<\/h5>\n<p>Most Hebrew roots originally expressed some physical action or denoted some natural object. The verb “to decide” originally meant “to cut”; “to be true” originally meant “to be firmly fixed”; “to be right” meant “to be straight”; “to be honorable” meant “to be heavy.”<\/p>\n<p>Abstract terms are alien to the character of Hebrew; for example, biblical Hebrew has no specific words for “theology,” “philosophy,” or “religion.” Intellectual or theological concepts are expressed by concrete terms. The abstract idea of sin is represented by such words as “to miss the mark” or “crooked” or “rebellion” or “trespass” (“to cross over”). Mind or intellect is expressed by “heart” or “kidneys,” and emotion or compassion by “bowels” (see Is 63:15, <span>kjv<\/span>). Other concrete terms in Hebrew are “horn” for strength or vigor, “bones” for self, and “seed” for descendants. A mental quality is often depicted by the part of the body thought of as its most appropriate embodiment. Strength can be represented by “arm” or “hand,” anger by “nostril,” displeasure by “falling face,” acceptance by “shining face,” thinking by “say.”<\/p>\n<p>Some translators have attempted to represent a Hebrew word always by the same English word, but that leads to serious problems. Sometimes there is considerable disagreement on the exact shade of meaning of a Hebrew word in a given passage. A single root frequently represents a variety of meanings, depending on usage and context. The word for “bless” can also mean “curse, greet, favor, praise.” The word for “judgment” is used also for “justice, verdict, penalty, ordinance, duty, custom, manner.” The word for “strength” or “power” also means “army, virtue, worth, courage.”<\/p>\n<p>Further ambiguity arises from the fact that some Hebrew consonants stand for two different original consonants that have merged in the evolution of the language. Two words that on the surface appear to be identical may be traced back to two different roots. For an example of this phenomenon in English, compare “bass” (a fish) with “bass” (a vocalist).<\/p>\n<h5>Syntax<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew syntax is relatively uncomplicated. Few subordinating conjunctions (“if,” “when,” “because,” etc.) are used; sentences are usually coordinated by using the simple conjunction “and.” English translations of biblical texts generally try to show the logical connection between successive sentences, even though it is not always clear. In Genesis 1:2–3:1, all but three of the 56 verses begin with “and,” yet the <span>nlt<\/span> translates that conjunction variously as “then” (1:3), “so” (v 27), “so” (2:1), and “instead” (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew style is enlivened by use of direct discourse. The narrator does not simply state that “such and such a person said that . . .” (indirect discourse). Instead, the parties speak for themselves (direct discourse), creating a freshness that remains even after repeated reading.<\/p>\n<h5>Poetry<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew poetry uses a variety of rhetorical devices. Some of them—such as assonance, alliteration, and acrostics—can be appreciated only in the original Hebrew. But parallelism, the most important characteristic of Hebrew poetry, is evident even in English translation. Among the many forms of parallelism possible, four common categories exist: (1) synonymous, a repeating style in which parallel lines say the same thing in different words; (2) antithetic, a contrasting style in which contrary thoughts are expressed; (3) completive, with a completing parallel line filling out the thought of the first; (4) climactic, in which an ascending parallel line picks up something from the first line and repeats it. Numerous other forms of parallelism enrich Hebrew poetry. The possible varations of parallelism are almost endless.<\/p>\n<h5>Figures of Speech<\/h5>\n<p>Hebrew abounds in expressive figures of speech based on the Hebrew people’s character and way of life. Certain odd but well-known expressions found in English literature come from the Hebrew style, like “apple of his eye” (Dt 32:10; Ps 17:8; Prv 7:2; Zec 2:8) and “skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20). Some of the more striking Hebrew modes of expression are hard to transfer into English, such as “to uncover the ear,” meaning “to disclose, reveal.” Others are more familiar, like “to stiffen the neck” for “to be stubborn, rebellious”; “to bend or incline the ear” for “to listen closely.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Legacy\">Legacy<\/p>\n<p>English and a number of other modern languages have been enriched by Hebrew. English even contains a number of Hebrew “loan words.” Some of these have had wide influence (“amen,” “hallelujah,” “jubilee”). Many Hebrew proper nouns are used in modern languages for persons and places, such as David, Jonathan\/John, Miriam\/Mary, Bethlehem (the name of several towns and cities in the United States).<\/p>\n<p>Many common Hebrew expressions have been unconsciously accepted into English figures of speech, as in “mouth of the cave” and “face of the earth.” Some figures, such as “east of Eden,” have been used as titles for books and films.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEBREW LANGUAGE Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24). Preview • Origin and History • Family of Languages • Character • Hebrew Script and Grammar • Style • Legacy Origin and History In the Middle Ages a common v...","summary_en":"HEBREW LANGUAGE Language of the Jewish people. The name Hebrew is not applied by the OT to its own language, although the NT does use the name that way. In the OT, “Hebrew” means the individual or people who used the language. The language itself is called “the language of Canaan” (Is 19:18, nlt mg) or “the language of Judah” (Neh 13:24). Preview • Origin and History • Family of Languages • Character • Hebrew Script and Grammar • Style • Legacy Origin and History In the Middle Ages a common v...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32188,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Purse","title_en":"Purse","content_ro":"<h3>PURSE<\/h3>\n<p>A small bag or receptacle in which money and often other small objects would be carried. There are basically three Hebrew words and three Greek words referring to such a purse or pouch. The first refers to a purse or bag in which money or stone weights used with the balance scales were carried (Dt 25:13; Prv 1:14; Is 46:6; Mi 6:11). It could be made of leather or stout cotton. Another Hebrew word referring to much the same kind of pouch is found in 2 Kings 5:23. This same word also appears in a list of ladies’ finery in Isaiah 3:22 and may therefore have been a more ornamentally woven pouch than the first described above. The third Hebrew word appears in Genesis 42:35 and refers to a little bag with an open mouth. This was the small bag or purse in which Joseph’s brothers’ money had been placed before it was put into their sacks of grain.<\/p>\n<p>The corresponding Greek word for the Hebrew words discussed above means a money bag or purse. When Jesus sent out his disciples two by two, he prohibited them from taking, among other things, a purse (Lk 10:4; 22:35-36). In Luke 12:33 this same word for purse is used figuratively for treasure in heaven that cannot be exhausted, stolen, or destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>Another Greek word indicates another normal place for the carrying of money, the girdle or the belt, which was an essential part of dress for both men and women in the ancient East. When made of leather, they were made hollow or with slots for the purpose of carrying coins. When made of cloth, they were folded in such a manner that money could be carried in the folds, which served as pockets (Mt 10:9; Mk 6:8).<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word for the “money bag” that Judas is said to have kept for the disciples refers to a case or container for the mouthpiece of a wind instrument. By NT times it had become the Greek word for a money box or possibly a money bag (Jn 12:6; 13:29), and hence another NT word for purse.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PURSE<\/h3>\n<p>A small bag or receptacle in which money and often other small objects would be carried. There are basically three Hebrew words and three Greek words referring to such a purse or pouch. The first refers to a purse or bag in which money or stone weights used with the balance scales were carried (Dt 25:13; Prv 1:14; Is 46:6; Mi 6:11). It could be made of leather or stout cotton. Another Hebrew word referring to much the same kind of pouch is found in 2 Kings 5:23. This same word also appears in a list of ladies’ finery in Isaiah 3:22 and may therefore have been a more ornamentally woven pouch than the first described above. The third Hebrew word appears in Genesis 42:35 and refers to a little bag with an open mouth. This was the small bag or purse in which Joseph’s brothers’ money had been placed before it was put into their sacks of grain.<\/p>\n<p>The corresponding Greek word for the Hebrew words discussed above means a money bag or purse. When Jesus sent out his disciples two by two, he prohibited them from taking, among other things, a purse (Lk 10:4; 22:35-36). In Luke 12:33 this same word for purse is used figuratively for treasure in heaven that cannot be exhausted, stolen, or destroyed.<\/p>\n<p>Another Greek word indicates another normal place for the carrying of money, the girdle or the belt, which was an essential part of dress for both men and women in the ancient East. When made of leather, they were made hollow or with slots for the purpose of carrying coins. When made of cloth, they were folded in such a manner that money could be carried in the folds, which served as pockets (Mt 10:9; Mk 6:8).<\/p>\n<p>The Greek word for the “money bag” that Judas is said to have kept for the disciples refers to a case or container for the mouthpiece of a wind instrument. By NT times it had become the Greek word for a money box or possibly a money bag (Jn 12:6; 13:29), and hence another NT word for purse.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PURSE A small bag or receptacle in which money and often other small objects would be carried. There are basically three Hebrew words and three Greek words referring to such a purse or pouch. The first refers to a purse or bag in which money or stone weights used with the balance scales were carried (Dt 25:13; Prv 1:14; Is 46:6; Mi 6:11). It could be made of leather or stout cotton. Another Hebrew word referring to much the same kind of pouch is found in 2 Kings 5:23. This same word also appe...","summary_en":"PURSE A small bag or receptacle in which money and often other small objects would be carried. There are basically three Hebrew words and three Greek words referring to such a purse or pouch. The first refers to a purse or bag in which money or stone weights used with the balance scales were carried (Dt 25:13; Prv 1:14; Is 46:6; Mi 6:11). It could be made of leather or stout cotton. Another Hebrew word referring to much the same kind of pouch is found in 2 Kings 5:23. This same word also appe...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38265,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Weights and Measures","title_en":"Weights and Measures","content_ro":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","summary_en":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45152,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","summary_en":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72778,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","summary_en":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100404,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","summary_en":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128030,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:13","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:13-14<\/strong> <em>You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures<\/em> (Hebrew <em>you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small<\/em>): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","summary_en":"25:13-14 You must use accurate scales . . . full and honest measures (Hebrew you must not have stone and stone, large and small, . . . ephah and ephah, large and small): Merchants were not to use two sets of weights and measures for cheating customers—a heavier weight or measure when purchasing goods (thus reducing their own cost) and a lighter one when selling them (thus increasing their own profit).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60843,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88469,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116095,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143721,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"True Justice","title_en":"True Justice","content_ro":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>True Justice<\/h3>\n<p>The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them?<\/p>\n<p>Every society has social structures that separate the powerful from the weak and the privileged from the ill-favored. This was true of Old Testament Israel despite its unique constitution and commission as a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Judges and other officials charged with upholding the law might tend to favor individuals with financial means, high social standing, or community influence, especially when these individuals offer bribes (Deut 16:19). However, God cannot be bribed, nor does he show partiality (10:17). The rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, the exalted and the downtrodden are all alike to him.<\/p>\n<p>The prophets of Israel understood the need for equity and justice and often called for the application of these principles to community and national life (Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 59:14-19; Ezek 22:23-29; Amos 2:6-8; Hab 1:4). The New Testament also appeals for proper treatment of the poor and disadvantaged and speaks of God’s displeasure when they are neglected (Matt 23:23; 2 Cor 9:6-10; Jas 2:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>Justice that falls short of God’s standard is not true justice, and those responsible for corrupting justice can expect full retribution from the Judge of all the earth (see Deut 25:13-16).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 23:3; Lev 19:15; Deut 10:17-19; 16:19; 24:12-22; 25:13-16; 27:19; Ps 82:1-5; Prov 11:1; Isa 1:17; 10:1-4; 11:3-4; 59:14-19; Jer 22:13-17; Ezek 22:23-29; 45:9-10; Amos 2:6-8; 8:5-6; Hab 1:4; Matt 23:23; Luke 18:6-8; Jas 2:1-7<\/p>","summary_ro":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","summary_en":"True Justice The community of God’s people in Old Testament Israel was to be responsible for the well-being of widows, orphans, and foreigners (Deut 27:19). The Israelites were to represent the just God whom they served (see 10:17-19) and always remember that they had been an enslaved and defenseless people in Egypt (see 10:19; 24:18-22). How could they, the beneficiaries of God’s unfailing love and faithfulness, ignore the rights and needs of the most vulnerable who lived among them? Every s...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":8082,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":41253,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Amalekites","title_en":"The Amalekites","content_ro":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","summary_en":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68879,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Amalekites","title_en":"The Amalekites","content_ro":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","summary_en":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96505,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Amalekites","title_en":"The Amalekites","content_ro":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","summary_en":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124131,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"The Amalekites","title_en":"The Amalekites","content_ro":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Amalekites<\/h3>\n<p>The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia.<\/p>\n<p>The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when they attacked Israel (Exod 17:8-16). In this encounter, the Amalekites were defeated by Joshua and the Israelite army. The Amalekites later rebuffed Israel’s disobedient attempt to enter the Promised Land (Num 14:39-45). As a result of their enmity, Moses instructed Israel to destroy them (Deut 25:17-19), but the Amalekites continued to inhabit the Negev (see Judg 3:12-14; 6:33; 1 Sam 14:47-48; 15:1-35). Those who survived remained Israel’s enemies (27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam 8:11-12; Ps 83:1-8). This remnant was finally destroyed during the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chr 4:42-43). In the book of Esther, Haman (a descendant of King Agag) embodied their animosity to the bitter end (Esth 3; see 1 Sam 15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1 Sam 30:1-31<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","summary_en":"The Amalekites The Amalekites were the descendants of Amalek, a grandson of Esau (Gen 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). They were nomadic herdsmen; their territory in the Negev ranged from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly into Arabia. The Amalekites were staunch enemies of Israel. Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai when ...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1198,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Amalekites Amalek","title_en":"Amalekites Amalek","content_ro":"<h3>AMALEK, AMALEKITES<\/h3>\n<p>Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau’s son) by his concubine, Timna (Gn 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). Descendants of this tribal chief of Edom were known as Amalekites. They settled in the Negev Desert and became allies of the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites. The Amalekites were notable enemies of Israel. Amalek inherited the fraternal feud that had begun with his grandfather Esau’s antagonism toward Jacob. Since Jacob was one of the progenitors of Israel, the conflict between Amalek and Israel had both a theological and political basis.<\/p>\n<p>The territory of the nomadic Amalekites in the Negev ranged at times from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly over into Arabia. In the Negev they blocked the path of the Israelites during the exodus (Ex 17:8-16).<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai. Moses stood on top of a hill and held up the rod of God until Israel won the battle, then built an altar and named it “The Lord Is My Banner” (Ex 17:1, 8-16). The Amalekites attacked stragglers during Israel’s desert wanderings (Dt 25:17-18). After reaching the boundary of the Promised Land but rejecting Caleb and Joshua’s report of it, the unbelieving and disheartened Israelites attacked the Amalekites and were defeated (Nm 14:39-45).<\/p>\n<p>When Balaam was summoned by King Balak of Moab to curse Israel, he turned his curse upon Moab and in his last oracle predicted the end of Amalek’s tribe (Nm 24:20). Moses, in his farewell speech, reminded the children of Israel that they had been harassed by Amalek’s descendants and should blot out all remembrance of the name Amalek (Dt 25:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges Amalekites continued to occupy their traditional area and became associated with the Kenites (1 Sm 15:5-6), descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, who settled in the Negev south of Arad (Jgs 1:16). The Amalekites, still associated with other nomadic tribes (Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites), were rallied by Eglon, king of Moab, to defeat Israel and seize Jericho (Jgs 3:12-14). The Song of Deborah cites Amalek as one of a coalition of tribes against Israel (Jgs 5:14, <span>kjv<\/span>). The name is omitted in a number of modern translations, and in others translated as “into the valley” (<span>rsv<\/span>). However, Amalekite harassment is referred to in other passages of the time of Deborah and Barak (Jgs 6:3, 33; 7:12). Gideon defeated the coalition (Jgs 7:12-25), but there is no evidence that the Amalekites were driven out of the Negev.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Samuel, Saul sent his armies out against the Amalekites (14:47-48) and received a command from God to destroy them and all their possessions (15:1-3). He did attack their city (15:4-7) but did not kill their king, Agag (15:8). Saul distributed the choicest Amalekite livestock to his men (15:9), for which the Lord condemned him and sent Samuel to tell him that his kingship was ended because of his sin (15:10-31). Samuel then slaughtered Agag (15:32-35). A remnant of Amalekites must have escaped, since they appeared again as David’s foes while he was still a young warrior (27:8). He rescued his two wives carried off by Amalekites and killed most of the raiding party (30:1-20). The Amalekites were Israel’s sworn enemies throughout King David’s reign (2 Sm 1:1). They are listed among the enemies of Israel (2 Sm 8:12; 1 Chr 18:11; Ps 83:7). Destruction of the few surviving Amalekites came several hundred years after David during the reign of Hezekiah of the southern kingdom of Judah (1 Chr 4:41-43).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AMALEK, AMALEKITES<\/h3>\n<p>Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau’s son) by his concubine, Timna (Gn 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). Descendants of this tribal chief of Edom were known as Amalekites. They settled in the Negev Desert and became allies of the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites. The Amalekites were notable enemies of Israel. Amalek inherited the fraternal feud that had begun with his grandfather Esau’s antagonism toward Jacob. Since Jacob was one of the progenitors of Israel, the conflict between Amalek and Israel had both a theological and political basis.<\/p>\n<p>The territory of the nomadic Amalekites in the Negev ranged at times from south of Beersheba to the southeast as far as Elath and Ezion-geber. They undoubtedly raided westward into the coastal plain, eastward into the Arabah wastelands, and possibly over into Arabia. In the Negev they blocked the path of the Israelites during the exodus (Ex 17:8-16).<\/p>\n<p>Israel’s first encounter with the warriors of Amalek came at Rephidim near Sinai. Moses stood on top of a hill and held up the rod of God until Israel won the battle, then built an altar and named it “The Lord Is My Banner” (Ex 17:1, 8-16). The Amalekites attacked stragglers during Israel’s desert wanderings (Dt 25:17-18). After reaching the boundary of the Promised Land but rejecting Caleb and Joshua’s report of it, the unbelieving and disheartened Israelites attacked the Amalekites and were defeated (Nm 14:39-45).<\/p>\n<p>When Balaam was summoned by King Balak of Moab to curse Israel, he turned his curse upon Moab and in his last oracle predicted the end of Amalek’s tribe (Nm 24:20). Moses, in his farewell speech, reminded the children of Israel that they had been harassed by Amalek’s descendants and should blot out all remembrance of the name Amalek (Dt 25:17-19).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges Amalekites continued to occupy their traditional area and became associated with the Kenites (1 Sm 15:5-6), descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, who settled in the Negev south of Arad (Jgs 1:16). The Amalekites, still associated with other nomadic tribes (Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites), were rallied by Eglon, king of Moab, to defeat Israel and seize Jericho (Jgs 3:12-14). The Song of Deborah cites Amalek as one of a coalition of tribes against Israel (Jgs 5:14, <span>kjv<\/span>). The name is omitted in a number of modern translations, and in others translated as “into the valley” (<span>rsv<\/span>). However, Amalekite harassment is referred to in other passages of the time of Deborah and Barak (Jgs 6:3, 33; 7:12). Gideon defeated the coalition (Jgs 7:12-25), but there is no evidence that the Amalekites were driven out of the Negev.<\/p>\n<p>According to 1 Samuel, Saul sent his armies out against the Amalekites (14:47-48) and received a command from God to destroy them and all their possessions (15:1-3). He did attack their city (15:4-7) but did not kill their king, Agag (15:8). Saul distributed the choicest Amalekite livestock to his men (15:9), for which the Lord condemned him and sent Samuel to tell him that his kingship was ended because of his sin (15:10-31). Samuel then slaughtered Agag (15:32-35). A remnant of Amalekites must have escaped, since they appeared again as David’s foes while he was still a young warrior (27:8). He rescued his two wives carried off by Amalekites and killed most of the raiding party (30:1-20). The Amalekites were Israel’s sworn enemies throughout King David’s reign (2 Sm 1:1). They are listed among the enemies of Israel (2 Sm 8:12; 1 Chr 18:11; Ps 83:7). Destruction of the few surviving Amalekites came several hundred years after David during the reign of Hezekiah of the southern kingdom of Judah (1 Chr 4:41-43).<\/p>","summary_ro":"AMALEK, AMALEKITES Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau’s son) by his concubine, Timna (Gn 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). Descendants of this tribal chief of Edom were known as Amalekites. They settled in the Negev Desert and became allies of the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites. The Amalekites were notable enemies of Israel. Amalek inherited the fraternal feud that had begun with his grandfather Esau’s antagonism toward Jacob. Since Jacob was one of the progenitors of Israel, t...","summary_en":"AMALEK, AMALEKITES Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau’s son) by his concubine, Timna (Gn 36:12; 1 Chr 1:36). Descendants of this tribal chief of Edom were known as Amalekites. They settled in the Negev Desert and became allies of the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Ishmaelites, and Midianites. The Amalekites were notable enemies of Israel. Amalek inherited the fraternal feud that had begun with his grandfather Esau’s antagonism toward Jacob. Since Jacob was one of the progenitors of Israel, t...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45153,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","summary_en":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72779,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","summary_en":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100405,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","summary_en":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128031,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:17","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:17","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:17<\/strong> The <em>Amalekites<\/em> were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","summary_en":"25:17 The Amalekites were tribal peoples who attacked Israel’s rear flanks during the Sinai wilderness wandering (Exod 17:8-16). They were apparently related to the Edomites (Gen 36:12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61166,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Complete Destruction","title_en":"Complete Destruction","content_ro":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","summary_en":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88792,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Complete Destruction","title_en":"Complete Destruction","content_ro":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","summary_en":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116418,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Complete Destruction","title_en":"Complete Destruction","content_ro":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","summary_en":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144044,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Complete Destruction","title_en":"Complete Destruction","content_ro":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Complete Destruction<\/h3>\n<p>God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kharam<\/span> (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19).<\/p>\n<p>Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense against God, such as worshiping false gods (Deut 7:1-6; 13:12-18). In 1 Samuel 15:3, complete destruction is prescribed as God’s judgment on a nation that mistreated his chosen people. Those who curse God’s family are, in turn, cursed (Gen 12:3).<\/p>\n<p>God still judges the godless and impenitent. But in the new covenant, Christians are not called to be agents of such judgment. God calls us to exercise his mercy toward those who wrong us (see Luke 9:51-56). We must completely destroy whatever within ourselves wars against Christ (Rom 8:12-13; Col 3:5). And we must overcome the enemies of Christ by our faith, by the Good News, and by our love (Eph 6:10-20; 1 Jn 2:9-17). God will mete out judgment according to his justice and in his time (Rom 12:19; 2 Thes 1:6-10).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 22:20; Lev 27:28-29; Num 21:2-3; Deut 7:1-6, 26; 13:12-18; Josh 6:17-19; 7:11-26; 1 Sam 15:3; 1 Kgs 20:42; Isa 43:26-28<\/p>","summary_ro":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","summary_en":"Complete Destruction God instructed Saul to “completely destroy” the Amalekites, who had ambushed the Israelites after the Exodus (see Exod 17:8-16; Deut 25:17-19). The Hebrew word kharam (“completely destroy”) often means dedicating something or someone completely to the Lord, either by destroying it (1 Sam 15:3; Josh 6:17-18) or by giving it as an offering (see Lev 27:28-29; Josh 6:19). Complete destruction was called for in cases where those to be destroyed had committed a severe offense a...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":45154,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","summary_en":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":72780,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","summary_en":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":100406,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","summary_en":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128032,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Deuteronomul 25:19","title_en":"Study Note: Deuteronomul 25:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>25:19<\/strong> <em>destroy:<\/em> God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy <em>the Amalekites<\/em><em>,<\/em> something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • <em>from under heaven:<\/em> The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).<\/p>","summary_ro":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","summary_en":"25:19 destroy: God authorized war against his enemies. Later, Samuel commanded Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites, something he only partially accomplished (1 Sam 15). As a result, God rejected Saul as king. • from under heaven: The Amalekites were to be obliterated completely (see study note on Deut 2:34).","source":"StudyNotes.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"}}