1
Abimelec, fiul lui Ierubaal, s-a dus la Sihem la fraţii mamei lui, şi iată cum le-a vorbit atât lor cât şi la toată familia casei tatălui mamei sale:
2
,,Spuneţi, vă rog, în auzul tuturor locuitorilor din Sihem: ,Este mai bine pentru voi ca şaptezeci de oameni, toţi fii ai lui Ierubaal, să stăpânească peste voi, sau un singur om să stăpânească peste voi?` Şi aduceţi-vă aminte că eu sânt os din oasele voastre şi carne din carnea voastră.``
3
Fraţii mamei lui au spus toate cuvintele acestea pentru el în auzul tuturor locuitorilor din Sihem, şi inima lor s-a plecat spre Abimelec; căci îşi ziceau: ,,El este frate cu noi.``
4
I-au dat şaptezeci de sicli de argint, pe cari i-au ridicat din casa lui Baal-Berit. Abimelec a cumpărat cu ei pe nişte oameni fără căpătâi şi neastâmpăraţi, cari au mers după el.
5
A venit în casa tatălui său la Ofra, şi a ucis pe fraţii săi, fiii lui Ierubaal, şaptezeci de oameni, pe aceeaş peatră. N-a scăpat decât Iotam, cel mai tânăr fiu al lui Ierubaal, căci se ascunsese.
6
Toţi locuitorii din Sihem şi toată casa lui Milo s-au strâns la olaltă, şi au venit de au făcut împărat pe Abimelec, lângă stejarul sădit în Sihem.
7
Iotam a aflat despre lucrul acesta. S-a dus şi s-a aşezat pe vârful muntelui Garizim, şi iată ce le-a strigat el cu glas tare: ,,Ascultaţi-mă, locuitorii Sihemului, şi Dumnezeu să vă asculte!
8
Copacii au plecat să ungă un împărat şi să-l pună în fruntea lor. Ei au zis măslinului: ,Împărăţeşte peste noi!`
9
Dar măslinul le-a răspuns: ,Să-mi părăsesc eu untdelemnul meu, care îmi aduce laude din partea lui Dumnezeu şi a oamenilor, ca să mă duc să domnesc peste copaci?`
10
Şi copacii au zis smochinului: ,Vino, tu, de împărăţeşte peste noi!`
11
Dar smochinul le-a răspuns: ,Să-mi părăsesc eu dulceaţa mea şi rodul meu cel minunat, ca să mă duc să domnesc peste copaci?`
12
Şi copacii au zis viţei: ,Vino, tu, şi domneşte peste noi.`
13
Dar viţa le-a răspuns: ,Să-mi părăsesc eu vinul, care înveseleşte pe Dumnezeu şi pe oameni, ca să mă duc să domnesc peste copaci?`
14
Atunci toţi copacii au zis spinului: ,Vino, tu, şi împărăţeşte peste noi.`
15
Şi spinul a răspuns copacilor: ,Dacă în adevăr vreţi să mă ungeţi ca împărat al vostru, veniţi şi adăpostiţi-vă subt umbra mea; altfel, să iasă un foc din spin, şi să mistuie cedrii Libanului.`
16
Acum, oare cu adevărat şi cu toată curăţia aţi lucrat voi, făcând împărat pe Abimelec? Aţi arătat voi bunăvoinţă faţă de Ierubaal şi de casa lui? V-aţi purtat voi oare cu el potrivit cu slujba pe care v-a făcut-o? -
17
Căci tatăl meu s-a luptat pentru voi; şi-a pus viaţa în primejdie, şi v-a izbăvit din mâna lui Madian;
18
şi voi v-aţi ridicat împotriva casei tatălui meu, i-aţi ucis fiii, şaptezeci de oameni, pe aceeaş piatră, şi aţi făcut împărat peste locuitorii din Sihem pe Abimelec, fiul roabei lui, pentrucă este fratele vostru. -
19
Dacă în adevăr şi cu toată curăţia v-aţi purtat voi astăzi faţă de Ierubaal şi casa lui, bine! Abimelec să fie bucuria voastră, şi voi să fiţi bucuria lui!
20
Dacă nu, să iasă un foc din Abimelec, şi să mistuie pe locuitorii din Sihem şi casa lui Milo; şi un foc să iasă din locuitorii Sihemului şi din casa lui Milo, şi să mistuie pe Abimelec!``
21
Iotam s-a dat înlături, şi a luat-o la fugă; s-a dus la Beer unde a locuit departe de fratele său Abimelec.
22
Abimelec stăpânise trei ani peste Israel.
23
Atunci Dumnezeu a trimes un duh rău între Abimelec şi locuitorii Sihemului şi locuitorii Sihemului au fost necredincioşi lui Abimelec,
24
pentru ca şi cruzimea săvârşită cu cei şaptezeci de fii ai lui Ierubaal să-şi ia pedeapsa, şi sângele lor să cadă asupra fratelui lor Abimelec, care-i ucisese, şi asupra locuitorilor Sihemului, cari-l ajutaseră să ucidă pe fraţii săi.
25
Locuitorii Sihemului au pus la pândă împotriva lui, pe vârfurile munţilor, nişte oameni, cari jăfuiau pe toţi cei ce treceau pe lângă ei, pe drum. Şi lucrul acesta a fost adus la cunoştinţa lui Abimelec.
26
Gaal, fiul lui Ebed, a venit cu fraţii săi, şi au trecut la Sihem. Locuitorii Sihemului au avut încredere în el!
27
Au ieşit la câmp, le-au cules viile, le-au călcat strugurii, şi au început să se veselească; au intrat în casa dumnezeului lor, au mâncat şi au băut, şi au blestemat pe Abimelec.
28
Şi Gaal, fiul lui Ebed, zicea: ,,Cine este Abimelec, şi cine este Sihem, ca să slujim lui Abimelec? Nu este el fiul lui Ierubaal, şi nu este Zebul, îngrijitorul lui? Slujiţi bărbaţilor lui Hamor, tatăl lui Sihem; de ce să slujim lui Abimelec?
29
Oh! dacă aş fi eu stăpânul acestui popor, aş răsturna pe Abimelec``. Şi despre Abimelec zicea: ,,Strânge-ţi oştirea şi ieşi``!
30
Zebul, cârmuitorul cetăţii, a auzit ce zicea Gaal, fiul lui Ebed, şi s-a aprins de mânie.
31
A trimes pe ascuns nişte soli la Abimelec, ca să-i spună: ,,Iată, Gaal, fiul lui Ebed, şi fraţii lui, au venit la Sihem, şi au răsculat cetatea împotriva ta.
32
Acum, pleacă noaptea, tu şi poporul care este cu tine, şi stai la pândă în câmp.
33
Dimineaţa, la răsăritul soarelui, să te arunci cu năvală asupra cetăţii. Şi când Gaal şi poporul care este cu el vor ieşi împotriva ta, să-i faci ce-ţi vor îngădui puterile.
34
Abimelec şi tot poporul care era cu el au plecat noaptea, şi s-au pus la pândă lângă Sihem, împărţiţi în patru cete.
35
Gaal, fiul lui Ebed, a ieşit, şi a stătut la intrarea porţii cetăţii. Abimelec şi tot poporul care era cu el s-au sculat atunci dela pândă.
36
Gaal a zărit poporul, şi a zis lui Zebul: ,,Iată un popor care se pogoară din vârful munţilor.`` Zebul i-a răspuns: ,,Este umbra munţilor pe cari-i iei drept oameni.``
37
Gaal, luând iarăş cuvântul, a zis: ,,Este chiar un popor care se pogoară de pe înălţimile ţării, şi o ceată vine pe drumul Stejarului Ghicitorilor.``
38
Zebul i-a răspuns: ,,Unde îţi este acum gura, cu care ziceai: ,Cine este Abimelec, ca să-i slujim? Nu este oare acesta poporul pe care-l dispreţuiai tu? Mergi acum, şi luptă-te cu el!``
39
Gaal a înaintat în fruntea locuitorilor Sihemului, şi s-a luptat cu Abimelec.
40
Urmărit de Abimelec, a luat-o la fugă dinaintea lui, şi mulţi oameni au căzut morţi până la intrarea porţii.
41
Abimelec s-a oprit la Aruma. Şi Zebul a izgonit pe Gaal şi pe fraţii lui, cari n-au putut să rămână la Sihem.
42
A douazi, poporul, a ieşit la câmp. Abimelec, căruia i s-a dat de ştire,
43
şi-a luat ceata, a împărţit-o în trei părţi, şi s-a pus la pândă în câmp. Văzând că poporul ieşea din cetate, s-a sculat împotriva lor, şi i-a bătut.
44
Abimelec şi cetele cari erau cu el au pornit înainte şi s-au aşezat la intrarea porţii cetăţii: două din aceste cete s-au aruncat asupra tuturor celorce erau în câmp, şi i-au bătut.
45
Abimelec a bătut cetatea toată ziua; a luat-o, şi a ucis poporul care se afla în ea. Apoi a dărâmat cetatea până în temelie, şi a presărat sare peste ea.
46
La auzul acestui lucru, toţi locuitorii turnului Sihemului s-au dus în cetăţuia casei dumnezeului Berit.
47
S-a dat de ştire lui Abimelec că toţi locuitorii turnului Sihemnului s-au strâns acolo.
48
Atunci Abimelec s-a suit pe muntele Ţalmon, el şi tot poporul care era cu el. A luat o secure în mână, a tăiat o ramură de copac, a luat-o şi a pus-o pe umăr. Apoi a zis poporului care era cu el: ,,Aţi văzut ce am făcut? Grăbiţi-vă şi faceţi şi voi ca mine.``
49
Şi au tăiat fiecare câte o ramură, şi au mers după Abimelec; au aşezat ramurile lângă cetăţuie, şi i-au dat foc ei şi celor ce se aflau în ea. Aşa au perit toţi oamenii din turnul Sihemului, în număr de aproape o mie, bărbaţi şi femei.
50
Abimelec a pornit împotriva Tebeţului. A împresurat Tebeţul, şi l-a luat.
51
În mijlocul cetăţii era un turn tare, unde au fugit toţi locuitorii cetăţii, bărbaţi şi femei; au încuiat uşile după ei, şi s-au suit pe acoperişul turnului.
52
Abimelec a ajuns până la turn; l-a bătut, şi s-a apropiat de uşa turnului ca să-i pună foc.
53
Atunci o femeie a aruncat o piatră de rîşniţă pe capul lui Abimelec, şi i-a sfărâmat ţeasta capului.
54
Îndată el a chemat pe tânărul care-i purta armele, şi i-a zis: ,,Scoate-ţi sabia, şi omoară-mă, ca să nu se zică de mine: ,L-a omorât o femeie.`` Tânărul l-a străpuns cu sabia, şi a murit.
55
Când au văzut bărbaţii lui Israel că Abimelec a murit, au plecat fiecare acasă.
56
Astfel a făcut Dumnezeu să cadă asupra lui Abimelec răul pe care-l făcuse tatălui său, ucizând pe cei şaptezeci de fraţi ai lui;
57
şi Dumnezeu a făcut să cadă asupra capului oamenilor din Sihem tot răul pe care-l făcuseră. Astfel s-a împlinit faţă de ei blestemul lui Iotam, fiul lui Ierubaal.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":210,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abimelech","title_en":"Abimelech","content_ro":"<h3>ABIMELECH<\/h3>\n<p>Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites.<\/p>\n<p>1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a married woman, so she was restored to her husband. The same Abimelech and Abraham later entered into a treaty to clarify water rights in the Negev Desert at Beersheba (Gn 21:22-34).<\/p>\n<li>2. King of Gerar in Isaac’s time. Isaac, too, passed off his wife, Rebekah, as his sister at Gerar. Abimelech, perhaps remembering the near judgment on his predecessor, acted decisively to protect Rebekah’s integrity. He proclaimed a death penalty on any who touched her or her husband (Gn 26:1-11). Abimelech asked Isaac to leave Philistine territory because of overcrowding and continuing dispute over water (Gn 26:12-22). Eventually, at Beersheba, Isaac and Abimelech ended their hostility by renewing the treaty made by Abraham and the earlier Abimelech (Gn 26:26-33).<\/li>\n<li>3. Gideon’s son by a concubine in Shechem (Jgs 8:31). After his father’s death, Abimelech conspired with his mother’s family to assassinate his 70 half brothers. Only one of them, Jotham, escaped (Jgs 9:1-5). In Abimelech’s third year of rule, he cruelly suppressed a rebellion (Jgs 9:22-49). Eventually his skull was crushed by a millstone thrown down by a woman on a tower. Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him with a sword so that no one could say he had been killed by a woman (Jgs 9:53-57).<\/li>\n<li>4. Achish, king of the Philistine city of Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15).<\/li>\n<li>5. Abiathar’s son, a priest associated with Zadok in David’s time (1 Chr 18:16).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ABIMELECH<\/h3>\n<p>Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites.<\/p>\n<p>1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a married woman, so she was restored to her husband. The same Abimelech and Abraham later entered into a treaty to clarify water rights in the Negev Desert at Beersheba (Gn 21:22-34).<\/p>\n<li>2. King of Gerar in Isaac’s time. Isaac, too, passed off his wife, Rebekah, as his sister at Gerar. Abimelech, perhaps remembering the near judgment on his predecessor, acted decisively to protect Rebekah’s integrity. He proclaimed a death penalty on any who touched her or her husband (Gn 26:1-11). Abimelech asked Isaac to leave Philistine territory because of overcrowding and continuing dispute over water (Gn 26:12-22). Eventually, at Beersheba, Isaac and Abimelech ended their hostility by renewing the treaty made by Abraham and the earlier Abimelech (Gn 26:26-33).<\/li>\n<li>3. Gideon’s son by a concubine in Shechem (Jgs 8:31). After his father’s death, Abimelech conspired with his mother’s family to assassinate his 70 half brothers. Only one of them, Jotham, escaped (Jgs 9:1-5). In Abimelech’s third year of rule, he cruelly suppressed a rebellion (Jgs 9:22-49). Eventually his skull was crushed by a millstone thrown down by a woman on a tower. Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him with a sword so that no one could say he had been killed by a woman (Jgs 9:53-57).<\/li>\n<li>4. Achish, king of the Philistine city of Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15).<\/li>\n<li>5. Abiathar’s son, a priest associated with Zadok in David’s time (1 Chr 18:16).<\/li>","summary_ro":"ABIMELECH Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites. 1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a ma...","summary_en":"ABIMELECH Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites. 1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a ma...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":2805,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Arumah","title_en":"Arumah","content_ro":"<h3>ARUMAH<\/h3>\n<p>City where Gideon’s son Abimelech lived after he was driven out of Shechem by its inhabitants (Jgs 9:1, 22-25, 31, 41); perhaps alternately called Rumah in 2 Kings 23:36.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARUMAH<\/h3>\n<p>City where Gideon’s son Abimelech lived after he was driven out of Shechem by its inhabitants (Jgs 9:1, 22-25, 31, 41); perhaps alternately called Rumah in 2 Kings 23:36.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARUMAH City where Gideon’s son Abimelech lived after he was driven out of Shechem by its inhabitants (Jgs 9:1, 22-25, 31, 41); perhaps alternately called Rumah in 2 Kings 23:36.","summary_en":"ARUMAH City where Gideon’s son Abimelech lived after he was driven out of Shechem by its inhabitants (Jgs 9:1, 22-25, 31, 41); perhaps alternately called Rumah in 2 Kings 23:36.","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3379,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Baal-Berith","title_en":"Baal-Berith","content_ro":"<h3>BAAL-BERITH<\/h3>\n<p>Pagan god worshiped in central Canaan around the city of Shechem (Jgs 9:1-4, 44-46). Baal-berith (“lord of the covenant”) was probably a local form of Baal, the leading Canaanite fertility god. During the period of the judges, the people of Israel turned from the Lord to worship the idols Baal and Baal-berith (Jgs 8:33). <em>See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAAL-BERITH<\/h3>\n<p>Pagan god worshiped in central Canaan around the city of Shechem (Jgs 9:1-4, 44-46). Baal-berith (“lord of the covenant”) was probably a local form of Baal, the leading Canaanite fertility god. During the period of the judges, the people of Israel turned from the Lord to worship the idols Baal and Baal-berith (Jgs 8:33). <em>See<\/em> Canaanite Deities and Religion.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAAL-BERITH Pagan god worshiped in central Canaan around the city of Shechem (Jgs 9:1-4, 44-46). Baal-berith (“lord of the covenant”) was probably a local form of Baal, the leading Canaanite fertility god. During the period of the judges, the people of Israel turned from the Lord to worship the idols Baal and Baal-berith (Jgs 8:33). See Canaanite Deities and Religion.","summary_en":"BAAL-BERITH Pagan god worshiped in central Canaan around the city of Shechem (Jgs 9:1-4, 44-46). Baal-berith (“lord of the covenant”) was probably a local form of Baal, the leading Canaanite fertility god. During the period of the judges, the people of Israel turned from the Lord to worship the idols Baal and Baal-berith (Jgs 8:33). See Canaanite Deities and Religion.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21324,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Judges","title_en":"Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","summary_en":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28513,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ophrah (Place)","title_en":"Ophrah (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>OPHRAH (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. City in Benjamin, probably identical with Ephraim (2 Sm 13:23; 2 Chr 13:19, “Ephron”; Jn 11:54). Ophrah is usually identified with the modern et-Taiyibeh, five miles (8 kilometers) north of Michmash and four miles (6.5 kilometers) northeast of Bethel.<\/li>\n<li>2. City in Manasseh owned by Gideon’s father, Joash the Abiezrite, and Gideon’s home (Jgs 6:11). There the angel appeared to Gideon, commissioning him as God’s agent of relief from the Midianites (vv 12-24). Following his spectacular victory, Gideon was nominated for kingship, but he refused. Strangely, he constructed an ephod from the spoils of battle (8:22-28), which Israel worshiped. The idol at Ophrah became a snare to Gideon and his family. Gideon died at Ophrah, an old man (vv 29-32). His son Abimelech, ambitious for power, slaughtered his sibling rivals at Ophrah; only one of the 70, Jotham, escaped (9:1-6).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>OPHRAH (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. City in Benjamin, probably identical with Ephraim (2 Sm 13:23; 2 Chr 13:19, “Ephron”; Jn 11:54). Ophrah is usually identified with the modern et-Taiyibeh, five miles (8 kilometers) north of Michmash and four miles (6.5 kilometers) northeast of Bethel.<\/li>\n<li>2. City in Manasseh owned by Gideon’s father, Joash the Abiezrite, and Gideon’s home (Jgs 6:11). There the angel appeared to Gideon, commissioning him as God’s agent of relief from the Midianites (vv 12-24). Following his spectacular victory, Gideon was nominated for kingship, but he refused. Strangely, he constructed an ephod from the spoils of battle (8:22-28), which Israel worshiped. The idol at Ophrah became a snare to Gideon and his family. Gideon died at Ophrah, an old man (vv 29-32). His son Abimelech, ambitious for power, slaughtered his sibling rivals at Ophrah; only one of the 70, Jotham, escaped (9:1-6).<\/li>","summary_ro":"OPHRAH (Place) 1. City in Benjamin, probably identical with Ephraim (2 Sm 13:23; 2 Chr 13:19, “Ephron”; Jn 11:54). Ophrah is usually identified with the modern et-Taiyibeh, five miles (8 kilometers) north of Michmash and four miles (6.5 kilometers) northeast of Bethel. 2. City in Manasseh owned by Gideon’s father, Joash the Abiezrite, and Gideon’s home (Jgs 6:11). There the angel appeared to Gideon, commissioning him as God’s agent of relief from the Midianites (vv 12-24). Following his spect...","summary_en":"OPHRAH (Place) 1. City in Benjamin, probably identical with Ephraim (2 Sm 13:23; 2 Chr 13:19, “Ephron”; Jn 11:54). Ophrah is usually identified with the modern et-Taiyibeh, five miles (8 kilometers) north of Michmash and four miles (6.5 kilometers) northeast of Bethel. 2. City in Manasseh owned by Gideon’s father, Joash the Abiezrite, and Gideon’s home (Jgs 6:11). There the angel appeared to Gideon, commissioning him as God’s agent of relief from the Midianites (vv 12-24). Following his spect...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34766,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shechem (Place)","title_en":"Shechem (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilometers) northwest. Although strategically located—the town controlled all roads through the central hill country of Palestine—it was without natural defenses and required extensive fortifications.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalReferences\">Biblical References<\/p>\n<p>Shechem first appears in the Bible as the initial campsite of Abram after he entered Canaan from Mesopotamia. There God promised him the land of Canaan, and there Abram built his first altar in the land (Gn 12:6-7). After Jacob’s 20-year sojourn in northern Mesopotamia at Paddan-aram, he returned to Shechem and bought a piece of land. By this time, the place was already a walled city with a gate (34:20, 24). After the defilement of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi massacred Shechem’s male population in revenge. Years later, when the patriarchal family was living in the Hebron area, Joseph went to Shechem to look for his brothers (37:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>After the Conquest, the ceremony of antiphonal blessing and cursing on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, respectively, was fulfilled in the vicinity of Shechem (Jos 8:30-35). In the division and settlement of the land, Shechem became one of the cities of refuge (20:7; 21:21) and one of the 48 Levitical cities (21:21). There Joshua delivered his farewell address (24:1, 25), and the bones of Joseph were buried on the land Jacob had bought there (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>During the unsettled days of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech set himself up as king of Israel there, at first with the support of the inhabitants. But a later revolt against him resulted in destruction of the city (Jgs 9:1-7, 23-57). Rehoboam was crowned there just before the split of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:1), and Jeroboam, first king of the northern kingdom, rebuilt the city and made it the first capital of the kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Excavations reveal that the earliest settlement at the site dates back to the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>, but the first significant settlement occurred during the first half of the second millennium and was the work of Amorites or Hyksos. The Hyksos surrounded the city with an immense sloping embankment about 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide and 20 feet (6.1 meters) high, upon which they built a brick wall. There was a two-entry gate on the east side and a three-entry gate on the northwest side. On the acropolis they built what has been interpreted as a fortress temple, which was rebuilt several times and finally destroyed by the Egyptians in about 1550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>About a century later, the Canaanites rebuilt Shechem on a smaller scale. A new fortress temple was built on the ruins of the old one and measured 53 feet (16.2 meters) wide and 41 feet (12.5 meters) deep, with an entrance on the long side. It had three sacred standing stones next to an altar in the open court. This temple is believed to be the house of Baal-berith destroyed by Abimelech about 1150 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 9:3-4, 46), and its sacred area was never rebuilt. Before that, however, there is no archaeological evidence of destruction for some 300 years, confirming the biblical indication that the Hebrews did not take the city at the time of the Conquest and that the inhabitants lived peaceably among the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, Solomon rebuilt Shechem as a provincial capital, but it suffered great destruction late in the 10th century, probably at the hands of Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Palestine in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25). Shortly thereafter, Jeroboam I refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Either he or a successor built a government warehouse on the ruins of the temple. Israelite Shechem met its end at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, just before the destruction of Samaria, and the town was virtually uninhabited for about 400 years.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth century, Alexander the Great established a camp on the site for his soldiers, and subsequently the Samaritans moved from Samaria and settled there. They built their temple on Mt Gerizim. John Hyrcanus probably destroyed Shechem for the last time in 128 <span>BC<\/span>. His violent opposition to the Samaritans involved destruction of their temple on Mt Gerizim and of Samaria at the same time.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilometers) northwest. Although strategically located—the town controlled all roads through the central hill country of Palestine—it was without natural defenses and required extensive fortifications.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalReferences\">Biblical References<\/p>\n<p>Shechem first appears in the Bible as the initial campsite of Abram after he entered Canaan from Mesopotamia. There God promised him the land of Canaan, and there Abram built his first altar in the land (Gn 12:6-7). After Jacob’s 20-year sojourn in northern Mesopotamia at Paddan-aram, he returned to Shechem and bought a piece of land. By this time, the place was already a walled city with a gate (34:20, 24). After the defilement of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi massacred Shechem’s male population in revenge. Years later, when the patriarchal family was living in the Hebron area, Joseph went to Shechem to look for his brothers (37:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>After the Conquest, the ceremony of antiphonal blessing and cursing on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, respectively, was fulfilled in the vicinity of Shechem (Jos 8:30-35). In the division and settlement of the land, Shechem became one of the cities of refuge (20:7; 21:21) and one of the 48 Levitical cities (21:21). There Joshua delivered his farewell address (24:1, 25), and the bones of Joseph were buried on the land Jacob had bought there (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>During the unsettled days of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech set himself up as king of Israel there, at first with the support of the inhabitants. But a later revolt against him resulted in destruction of the city (Jgs 9:1-7, 23-57). Rehoboam was crowned there just before the split of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:1), and Jeroboam, first king of the northern kingdom, rebuilt the city and made it the first capital of the kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Excavations reveal that the earliest settlement at the site dates back to the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>, but the first significant settlement occurred during the first half of the second millennium and was the work of Amorites or Hyksos. The Hyksos surrounded the city with an immense sloping embankment about 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide and 20 feet (6.1 meters) high, upon which they built a brick wall. There was a two-entry gate on the east side and a three-entry gate on the northwest side. On the acropolis they built what has been interpreted as a fortress temple, which was rebuilt several times and finally destroyed by the Egyptians in about 1550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>About a century later, the Canaanites rebuilt Shechem on a smaller scale. A new fortress temple was built on the ruins of the old one and measured 53 feet (16.2 meters) wide and 41 feet (12.5 meters) deep, with an entrance on the long side. It had three sacred standing stones next to an altar in the open court. This temple is believed to be the house of Baal-berith destroyed by Abimelech about 1150 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 9:3-4, 46), and its sacred area was never rebuilt. Before that, however, there is no archaeological evidence of destruction for some 300 years, confirming the biblical indication that the Hebrews did not take the city at the time of the Conquest and that the inhabitants lived peaceably among the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, Solomon rebuilt Shechem as a provincial capital, but it suffered great destruction late in the 10th century, probably at the hands of Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Palestine in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25). Shortly thereafter, Jeroboam I refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Either he or a successor built a government warehouse on the ruins of the temple. Israelite Shechem met its end at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, just before the destruction of Samaria, and the town was virtually uninhabited for about 400 years.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth century, Alexander the Great established a camp on the site for his soldiers, and subsequently the Samaritans moved from Samaria and settled there. They built their temple on Mt Gerizim. John Hyrcanus probably destroyed Shechem for the last time in 128 <span>BC<\/span>. His violent opposition to the Samaritans involved destruction of their temple on Mt Gerizim and of Samaria at the same time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHECHEM (Place) Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilome...","summary_en":"SHECHEM (Place) Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilome...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38132,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45796,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","summary_en":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45797,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","summary_en":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73422,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","summary_en":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73423,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","summary_en":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101048,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","summary_en":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101049,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","summary_en":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128674,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-57<\/strong> The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","summary_en":"9:1-57 The reign of Abimelech was the turning point between the comparative rest of the early period of judges (3:7–8:35) and the decline of the later years (10:1–16:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128675,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:1","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:1-3<\/strong> <em>Abimelech<\/em>, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s <em>uncles<\/em> and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","summary_en":"9:1-3 Abimelech, son of a concubine (8:31; see study note on 19:1), now argued that he could fulfill Israel’s desire for the kind of royal dynasty rejected by his father. • The lack of any account of a conquest of Shechem, despite Israel’s covenant activities in the city (Josh 24), suggests that Shechem’s inhabitants were assimilated into Israel. Abimelech’s uncles and his mother might thus have been of non-Israelite heritage.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":60958,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":64889,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","title_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","content_ro":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","summary_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88584,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":92515,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","title_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","content_ro":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","summary_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116210,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":120141,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","title_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","content_ro":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","summary_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":143836,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Shechem","title_en":"Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Shechem<\/h3>\n<p>Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24:32) and one of the cities of refuge (see Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:7).<\/p>\n<p>During the period of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech ruled from Shechem (Judg 9). Solomon later fortified Shechem as a provincial capital, but it was sacked soon after, probably by Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Israel in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (see 1 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam I then refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 12:25). Shechem was again destroyed, this time by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V, in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, shortly before the destruction of Samaria, and the ruins were virtually uninhabited for about four hundred years.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 33:18-19; Josh 8:30-35; 20:7; 24:1-32; Judg 9:1-56; 1 Kgs 12:1, 25; John 4:5<\/p>","summary_ro":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","summary_en":"Shechem Shechem was strategically located at the entrance to the pass between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim, where it could control several key roads through the central hill country. Jacob bought land near Shechem (Gen 33:18-19). While there, Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was raped by the prince of the area (whose name was Shechem); in response, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levi, killed all the men of the land (Gen 34). Later, the town of Shechem became part of Joseph’s inheritance (Josh 24...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":147767,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","title_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd","content_ro":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Preaching to a Tough Crowd<\/h3>\n<p>Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; 2:2), the callous (2:13-16), the dishonest (3:5), the apathetic (3:14-15), the doubters and skeptics, and the truly wicked (see 4:1). What does a preacher say to this kind of crowd?<\/p>\n<p>Malachi engaged his audience rhetorically through dialogue in a series of disputations. The prophet’s strong rebuke and clever anticipation of his audience’s rebuttals was a wake-up call that hit the mark: “Those who feared the <span>Lord<\/span> spoke with each other, and the <span>Lord<\/span> listened to what they said” (3:16).<\/p>\n<p>Like the prophets, both Jesus and his followers found themselves proclaiming messages to resistant audiences (see, e.g., Luke 4:16-30; John 10:22-40; Acts 5:26-40; 22:30–23:10). But such resistance did not provide impetus for neglecting the God-ordained task of proclaiming his word (see Acts 5:41-42). While those who preach a message from the Lord can hope for a positive response, as in the case of Malachi, such receptivity is by no means guaranteed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 19:6-11; Exod 17:1-13; Judg 9:1-21; 1 Kgs 22:8-28; Jer 28:1-17; Mal 3:14-18; John 10:24-39; Acts 22:30–23:10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","summary_en":"Preaching to a Tough Crowd Sometimes God calls individuals to proclaim his word to a difficult audience. The listeners may be resistant to God’s truth and may reject both the message and the messenger. This was especially true of the Old Testament prophets, who often proclaimed messages the people did not want to hear (see Jer 26:7-9; 38:1-6; Amos 7:10-13). Malachi’s sermons were directed to a tough audience. Among those in his congregation were the disillusioned (Mal 1:2), the cynical (1:7; ...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":5501,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bone","title_en":"Bone","content_ro":"<h3>BONE<\/h3>\n<p>One of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22).<\/p>\n<p>A valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life back into them (Ez 37:1-14). In a living body, however, bones are living tissue, and Ezekiel knew that broken bones could heal (30:21). Intact bones were a requirement for an unblemished lamb for the Passover (Ex 12:46; Nm 9:11-12). Thus, the NT states that when Jesus Christ, the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:36), was crucified, contrary to Roman practice, his legs were not broken (Ps 34:20; Jn 19:30-37).<\/p>\n<p>Some references to bones in the Bible (Jb 2:5; 19:20; 30:30) carry the connotation of deep feelings, as in the phrase “I feel it in my bones.” Other references are metaphorical expressions of close kinship, “flesh and bone” (Gn 2:23; 29:14; Jgs 9:2) being equivalent to the expression “one’s own flesh and blood.”<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BONE<\/h3>\n<p>One of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22).<\/p>\n<p>A valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life back into them (Ez 37:1-14). In a living body, however, bones are living tissue, and Ezekiel knew that broken bones could heal (30:21). Intact bones were a requirement for an unblemished lamb for the Passover (Ex 12:46; Nm 9:11-12). Thus, the NT states that when Jesus Christ, the “Lamb of God” (Jn 1:36), was crucified, contrary to Roman practice, his legs were not broken (Ps 34:20; Jn 19:30-37).<\/p>\n<p>Some references to bones in the Bible (Jb 2:5; 19:20; 30:30) carry the connotation of deep feelings, as in the phrase “I feel it in my bones.” Other references are metaphorical expressions of close kinship, “flesh and bone” (Gn 2:23; 29:14; Jgs 9:2) being equivalent to the expression “one’s own flesh and blood.”<\/p>","summary_ro":"BONE One of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22). A valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life b...","summary_en":"BONE One of the separate parts of the human or animal skeleton. After death, bones retain their form long after the soft tissues have decomposed, so bones are often associated with dead bodies or with death itself. The Israelites were concerned about proper respect for the bodies of the dead (Gn 50:25; 1 Sm 31:11-13; 2 Kgs 23:14-18; Ez 39:14-16; Am 2:1; Heb 11:22). A valley of “old, dry bones” symbolized the people of Israel, who were without hope until the Spirit of the Lord would put life b...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12385,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Flesh","title_en":"Flesh","content_ro":"<h3>FLESH<\/h3>\n<p>The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, <span>kjv<\/span>). This idea leads to the union of two different persons, man and wife as “one flesh” (Gn 2:24), and a man can say of his relatives, “I am your bone and your flesh” (Jgs 9:2). The idea of flesh as the whole person leads to the expression “all flesh,” denoting the totality of humankind, sometimes including also the animal world.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh” (Gn 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (i.e., his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God. The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit, as weakness is with strength.<\/p>\n<p>However, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7), and as God’s creation, it is good.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Paul ascribes many—often unique—definitions to the word “flesh” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sarx<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Stuff of the Body<\/h5>\n<p>“Flesh” is frequently used to describe the tissues that constitute the body. There are different kinds of flesh—“of men,” “of animals,” “of birds,” “of fish” (1 Cor 15:39). Pain and suffering may be experienced in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). Circumcision is done in the flesh (Rom 2:28). While “flesh” in such references is not sinful, it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Body Itself<\/h5>\n<p>By a natural transition, the part is used for the whole, and in many places “flesh” is synonymous with the body as a whole rather than designating the fleshy part of the body. Paul may thus speak either of being absent in the body (1 Cor 5:3) or in the flesh (Col 2:5). Paul can say that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body or in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:10-11). “He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin<\/h5>\n<p>Following OT usage, “flesh” was used by Paul to refer not merely to the stuff of the body or to the body itself, but concretely to the person as constituted by flesh. In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14, <span>kjv<\/span>) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate the source merely of his bodily life but of his entire human existence, including both his body and his human spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence<\/h5>\n<p>Another use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus, Paul can speak of the life that he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20, <span>rsv<\/span>). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pt 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the Johannine saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Presentation<\/h5>\n<p>“Flesh” also extends beyond humans in their bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3, <span>rsv<\/span>) does not mean confidence in the body but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles. The phrase to “glory after the flesh” (2 Cor 11:18, <span>kjv<\/span>) is rendered “boast about their human achievements” in the <span>nlt<\/span>. A good showing “in the flesh” is practically synonymous with worldly prominence (Gal 6:11-14). The Judaizers insisted upon circumcision to promote a sense of prideful attainment in the religious life so that they might have a ground of glorying. But these external distinctions and grounds for glorying no longer appealed to Paul, because the world had been crucified to him and he to the world.<\/p>\n<p>“Flesh” is also used of outward relationships, as when describing the social ties existing between slave and master (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Phlm 1:16). “In the flesh” also describes the realm of marital relationships, which entails certain troublesome problems (1 Cor 7:28).<\/p>\n<p>This usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16, <span>kjv<\/span>). The <span>rsv<\/span> correctly renders the phrase “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as a Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. But Paul surrendered this false human view and came to know Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. As a Christian, Paul no longer judged others according to the flesh.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Fallen Humanity<\/h5>\n<p>When Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50, <span>rsv<\/span>), he does not mean that humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God but rather that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53, <span>kjv<\/span>). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>When Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Sinful Humanity<\/h5>\n<p>There remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with human spirit regenerated by the divine Spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit, one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm that is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God. There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person.<\/p>\n<p>In Romans 7–8 Paul makes it clear that the unregenerate person cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus, the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (8:6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (7:18, <span>kjv<\/span>). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (6:15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (6:20). Paul, therefore, means that in his unregenerate nature there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.<\/p>\n<p>While Paul makes a sharp and absolute contrast between being “in the flesh” (unregenerate) and “in the Spirit” (regenerate), when one becomes regenerate and comes to be “in the Spirit,” that person is no longer in the flesh, but the flesh is still in him. In fact, there remains in the believer a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Writing to people who are “in the Spirit,” Paul says, “For the flesh lusteth [strives] against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17, <span>kjv<\/span>). Because the Christian life is the battleground of these two opposing principles, it is impossible to be the perfect person that one would wish to be.<\/p>\n<p>The same situation is reflected in 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:3 where Paul describes three classes of people: the “natural” (2:14, <span>kjv<\/span>); the “carnal,” that is, fleshly man (3:1, 3, <span>kjv<\/span>); and the “spiritual man” (3:1, <span>kjv<\/span>). The “natural man” is unregenerate. Those who are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:9) have devoted the whole of their life to the human level and hence are unable to know the things of God. “Spiritual man” refers to those whose life is ruled by the Spirit of God, so that the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) are evident in their life. Between these two there is a third class—those who are “fleshly” yet who are babes in Christ. Therefore, they must be “in the Spirit,” yet they do not walk “according to the Spirit.” Because they are “babes in Christ,” the Spirit of God dwells in them, yet the Holy Spirit is not allowed to have full control over them, and they are still walking “like men” (1 Cor 3:3), manifesting the works of the flesh in jealousy and strife.<\/p>\n<h5>Works of the Flesh<\/h5>\n<p>In Galatians 5:19-23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Gal 5:19-21, <span>kjv<\/span>). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition.<\/p>\n<h5>Victory over the Flesh<\/h5>\n<p>While a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the Spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death.<\/p>\n<p>This is called the tension between the objective and the subjective. Because certain things have happened in Christ (objective), certain inevitable results should accrue (subjective). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1-4). It is I myself who have died with Christ.<\/p>\n<p>This crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11, <span>kjv<\/span>). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ to sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ, but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body” (8:13, <span>kjv<\/span>). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (<span>kjv<\/span>), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness and the like.<\/p>\n<p>Victory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Rom 8:4). Walking in the Spirit means to live each moment under the control of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Body; Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FLESH<\/h3>\n<p>The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, <span>kjv<\/span>). This idea leads to the union of two different persons, man and wife as “one flesh” (Gn 2:24), and a man can say of his relatives, “I am your bone and your flesh” (Jgs 9:2). The idea of flesh as the whole person leads to the expression “all flesh,” denoting the totality of humankind, sometimes including also the animal world.<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps the most distinctive use of “flesh” in the OT is found in those passages where it designates human weakness and frailty over against God. “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh” (Gn 6:3, <span>rsv<\/span>). In Psalm 78:39, God attributes sin to the fact that men are but flesh. In 2 Chronicles 32:8 the arm of flesh of the king of Assyria (i.e., his weakness) is contrasted with the all-powerful God. The one who puts trust in God need not fear what “flesh” can do (Ps 56:4), but the one who puts trust in human flesh instead of in God is under a curse (Jer 17:5). In Isaiah 31:3 flesh is contrasted with spirit, as weakness is with strength.<\/p>\n<p>However, nowhere in the OT is flesh viewed as sinful. Flesh is conceived as being created by God of the dust of the earth (Gn 2:7), and as God’s creation, it is good.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Paul ascribes many—often unique—definitions to the word “flesh” (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">sarx<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Stuff of the Body<\/h5>\n<p>“Flesh” is frequently used to describe the tissues that constitute the body. There are different kinds of flesh—“of men,” “of animals,” “of birds,” “of fish” (1 Cor 15:39). Pain and suffering may be experienced in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7). Circumcision is done in the flesh (Rom 2:28). While “flesh” in such references is not sinful, it is corruptible and cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15:50). Jesus’ body was also a body of flesh (Col 1:22).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as the Body Itself<\/h5>\n<p>By a natural transition, the part is used for the whole, and in many places “flesh” is synonymous with the body as a whole rather than designating the fleshy part of the body. Paul may thus speak either of being absent in the body (1 Cor 5:3) or in the flesh (Col 2:5). Paul can say that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our body or in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:10-11). “He who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her. For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh’ ” (1 Cor 6:16, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Person with Reference to Origin<\/h5>\n<p>Following OT usage, “flesh” was used by Paul to refer not merely to the stuff of the body or to the body itself, but concretely to the person as constituted by flesh. In this usage the word may refer to the person’s human relationship, the physical origin and the natural ties that bind one to other humans. Paul speaks of his kinsmen “according to the flesh,” his fellow Jews (Rom 9:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), and even uses “my flesh” (11:14, <span>kjv<\/span>) as a synonym for these kinsmen. The “children of the flesh” (9:8) are those born by natural generation in contrast to those born as a result of divine intervention. Christ was descended from David according to the flesh (1:3). The phrase does not designate the source merely of his bodily life but of his entire human existence, including both his body and his human spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence<\/h5>\n<p>Another use of “flesh” simply designates human existence. As long as a person lives in the body, that one is “in the flesh.” Thus, Paul can speak of the life that he lives “in the flesh” as lived by faith in the Son of God (Gal 2:20, <span>rsv<\/span>). Referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry, Paul says that he abolished “in the flesh” the enmity between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:15). Peter has the same meaning when he speaks of Jesus having been put to death “in the flesh” (1 Pt 3:18). So also John: “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2). This usage is reflected most notably in the Johannine saying “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Human Existence in Terms of Outward Presentation<\/h5>\n<p>“Flesh” also extends beyond humans in their bodily life to include other factors crucial to human existence. Thus, “confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:3, <span>rsv<\/span>) does not mean confidence in the body but confidence in the whole complex of the outward realm of human existence. It includes Paul’s Jewish ancestry, his strict religious training, his zeal, and his prominence in Jewish religious circles. The phrase to “glory after the flesh” (2 Cor 11:18, <span>kjv<\/span>) is rendered “boast about their human achievements” in the <span>nlt<\/span>. A good showing “in the flesh” is practically synonymous with worldly prominence (Gal 6:11-14). The Judaizers insisted upon circumcision to promote a sense of prideful attainment in the religious life so that they might have a ground of glorying. But these external distinctions and grounds for glorying no longer appealed to Paul, because the world had been crucified to him and he to the world.<\/p>\n<p>“Flesh” is also used of outward relationships, as when describing the social ties existing between slave and master (Eph 6:5; Col 3:22; Phlm 1:16). “In the flesh” also describes the realm of marital relationships, which entails certain troublesome problems (1 Cor 7:28).<\/p>\n<p>This usage illuminates an otherwise difficult saying, “Henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more” (2 Cor 5:16, <span>kjv<\/span>). The <span>rsv<\/span> correctly renders the phrase “from a human point of view.” The verse does not mean that Paul had heard and seen Jesus in Jerusalem at some previous time and had gained some acquaintance with Christ “after the flesh.” “After the flesh” modifies the verb “to know,” not the noun “Christ.” Before his conversion, Paul knew all people “after the flesh”; that is, he judged them by worldly, human standards. To know Christ “after the flesh” means to look at him through merely human eyes. As a Jew, Paul had felt that Jesus was a deluded messianic pretender. According to the Jewish understanding, the Messiah was to reign over the earth as a Davidic king, save his people Israel, and punish the hated Gentiles. But Paul surrendered this false human view and came to know Christ as he really is—the incarnate Son of God, the Savior of all who believe. As a Christian, Paul no longer judged others according to the flesh.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Fallen Humanity<\/h5>\n<p>When Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50, <span>rsv<\/span>), he does not mean that humans cannot inherit the kingdom of God but rather that human fallenness cannot; as the next clause shows, “neither does corruption inherit incorruption.” The weak, fallen, corruptible body cannot inherit the kingdom of God; there must be a change; the “corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:53, <span>kjv<\/span>). This is not the salvation of the soul or spirit but the exchange of one kind of body for another that is suited to the final glorious kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>When Peter confessed the messiahship of Jesus, Jesus replied, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 16:17, <span>rsv<\/span>). The meaning of this verse is obvious. This knowledge of Jesus’ messiahship was not a human deduction; it could be achieved only by divine revelation.<\/p>\n<h5>Flesh as Sinful Humanity<\/h5>\n<p>There remains a group of ethical references that are distinctly Pauline. The most important feature of this usage is that man is seen not only as fallen and weak before God, but as fallen and sinful. Flesh is contrasted with human spirit regenerated by the divine Spirit, and without the aid of the Spirit, one cannot please God. The most vivid passage is the first part of Romans 8, where Paul sharply contrasts those who are “in the flesh” with those who are “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” in this sense does not mean to be in a state of ecstasy but to be living one’s life in that spiritual realm that is controlled by the Spirit of God. Those who are “in the flesh,” that is, unregenerate, cannot please God. There are two contrasting and mutually exclusive realms: “in the flesh” and “in the Spirit.” To be “in the Spirit” means to be indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, that is, to be a regenerate person.<\/p>\n<p>In Romans 7–8 Paul makes it clear that the unregenerate person cannot please God by loving and serving him as God requires. Thus, the Law was unable to make mankind truly righteous, because the flesh is weak (8:2). To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is life (8:6). Elsewhere Paul says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing” (7:18, <span>kjv<\/span>). Flesh here cannot be the physical flesh, for the body of flesh is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 6:19) and a member of Christ (6:15) and is to be the means of glorifying God (6:20). Paul, therefore, means that in his unregenerate nature there dwells none of the goodness that God demands.<\/p>\n<p>While Paul makes a sharp and absolute contrast between being “in the flesh” (unregenerate) and “in the Spirit” (regenerate), when one becomes regenerate and comes to be “in the Spirit,” that person is no longer in the flesh, but the flesh is still in him. In fact, there remains in the believer a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Writing to people who are “in the Spirit,” Paul says, “For the flesh lusteth [strives] against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:17, <span>kjv<\/span>). Because the Christian life is the battleground of these two opposing principles, it is impossible to be the perfect person that one would wish to be.<\/p>\n<p>The same situation is reflected in 1 Corinthians 2:14–3:3 where Paul describes three classes of people: the “natural” (2:14, <span>kjv<\/span>); the “carnal,” that is, fleshly man (3:1, 3, <span>kjv<\/span>); and the “spiritual man” (3:1, <span>kjv<\/span>). The “natural man” is unregenerate. Those who are “in the flesh” (Rom 8:9) have devoted the whole of their life to the human level and hence are unable to know the things of God. “Spiritual man” refers to those whose life is ruled by the Spirit of God, so that the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) are evident in their life. Between these two there is a third class—those who are “fleshly” yet who are babes in Christ. Therefore, they must be “in the Spirit,” yet they do not walk “according to the Spirit.” Because they are “babes in Christ,” the Spirit of God dwells in them, yet the Holy Spirit is not allowed to have full control over them, and they are still walking “like men” (1 Cor 3:3), manifesting the works of the flesh in jealousy and strife.<\/p>\n<h5>Works of the Flesh<\/h5>\n<p>In Galatians 5:19-23 Paul contrasts the life in the flesh and the life in the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like” (Gal 5:19-21, <span>kjv<\/span>). The important thing to note about this list is that while some of these are sins of bodily and sexual appetite, others are religious sins—idolatry, witchcraft—and several are sins “of the spirit,” that is, of the disposition—hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife. The words “seditions” and “heresies” refer not to theological heresies but to a factious, divisive spirit. This proves conclusively that for Paul the “flesh” is not synonymous with the body but includes the whole person, with all the inner attitudes and disposition.<\/p>\n<h5>Victory over the Flesh<\/h5>\n<p>While a struggle remains in the Christian between the Spirit and the flesh, Paul knows of a way of victory for the Spirit. The flesh of the body comes within the sphere of sanctification (1 Thes 5:23), but the flesh as the unregenerate human nature can only be put to death.<\/p>\n<p>This is called the tension between the objective and the subjective. Because certain things have happened in Christ (objective), certain inevitable results should accrue (subjective). In Paul’s view, the flesh has already been put to death in the death of Christ. Those who belong to Christ have already crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5:24). Paul elsewhere says, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2:20) and “our old self was crucified with him” (Rom 6:6). Such references make it clear that “flesh” and the “self” are in some ways to be identified. This identity is further supported in the teaching about crucifixion, for Paul means the same thing by the crucifixion of the flesh that he means when he says, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? We were baptized into his death. We are buried with him by baptism into death” (vv 1-4). It is I myself who have died with Christ.<\/p>\n<p>This crucifixion and death of the flesh does not, however, work automatically. It is an event that must be appropriated by faith. This involves two aspects. First, believers are to recognize that the flesh has been crucified with Christ. “Reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 6:11, <span>kjv<\/span>). One cannot consider the self dead with Christ to sin unless that person has actually died and been crucified with Christ, but because this has already happened at the moment of saving faith, it can be put into daily practice. Those who have died with Christ are to “mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body” (8:13, <span>kjv<\/span>). “Body” is here used as a vehicle for the works of the “flesh”—the sensual life of the unregenerate nature. Those who have been brought from death into life are to yield their members to God as instruments of righteousness (6:13). One who has died with Christ is to “mortify” (<span>kjv<\/span>), that is, put to death what is earthly—fornication, uncleanness, covetousness (Col 3:5). Having already put off the old nature and put on the new, the believer is to put on compassion, kindness, lowliness and the like.<\/p>\n<p>Victory over the flesh is sometimes described as walking in the Spirit. “Walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal 5:16, <span>rsv<\/span>; cf. Rom 8:4). Walking in the Spirit means to live each moment under the control of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Body; Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FLESH The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans. In the Old Testament Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv). This ...","summary_en":"FLESH The body; the physical being of humans; the human person and human existence; the carnal nature of humans. In the Old Testament Term commonly used to designate the material stuff of the body, whether of people (Gn 40:19) or of animals (Lv 6:27). However, “flesh” is used in the OT with a variety of meanings. Sometimes it is used as equivalent for the whole body (Prv 14:30), and the meaning is extended to designate the whole person (“my flesh also shall rest in hope,” Ps 16:9, kjv). This ...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":34768,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shechem (Place)","title_en":"Shechem (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilometers) northwest. Although strategically located—the town controlled all roads through the central hill country of Palestine—it was without natural defenses and required extensive fortifications.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalReferences\">Biblical References<\/p>\n<p>Shechem first appears in the Bible as the initial campsite of Abram after he entered Canaan from Mesopotamia. There God promised him the land of Canaan, and there Abram built his first altar in the land (Gn 12:6-7). After Jacob’s 20-year sojourn in northern Mesopotamia at Paddan-aram, he returned to Shechem and bought a piece of land. By this time, the place was already a walled city with a gate (34:20, 24). After the defilement of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi massacred Shechem’s male population in revenge. Years later, when the patriarchal family was living in the Hebron area, Joseph went to Shechem to look for his brothers (37:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>After the Conquest, the ceremony of antiphonal blessing and cursing on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, respectively, was fulfilled in the vicinity of Shechem (Jos 8:30-35). In the division and settlement of the land, Shechem became one of the cities of refuge (20:7; 21:21) and one of the 48 Levitical cities (21:21). There Joshua delivered his farewell address (24:1, 25), and the bones of Joseph were buried on the land Jacob had bought there (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>During the unsettled days of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech set himself up as king of Israel there, at first with the support of the inhabitants. But a later revolt against him resulted in destruction of the city (Jgs 9:1-7, 23-57). Rehoboam was crowned there just before the split of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:1), and Jeroboam, first king of the northern kingdom, rebuilt the city and made it the first capital of the kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Excavations reveal that the earliest settlement at the site dates back to the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>, but the first significant settlement occurred during the first half of the second millennium and was the work of Amorites or Hyksos. The Hyksos surrounded the city with an immense sloping embankment about 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide and 20 feet (6.1 meters) high, upon which they built a brick wall. There was a two-entry gate on the east side and a three-entry gate on the northwest side. On the acropolis they built what has been interpreted as a fortress temple, which was rebuilt several times and finally destroyed by the Egyptians in about 1550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>About a century later, the Canaanites rebuilt Shechem on a smaller scale. A new fortress temple was built on the ruins of the old one and measured 53 feet (16.2 meters) wide and 41 feet (12.5 meters) deep, with an entrance on the long side. It had three sacred standing stones next to an altar in the open court. This temple is believed to be the house of Baal-berith destroyed by Abimelech about 1150 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 9:3-4, 46), and its sacred area was never rebuilt. Before that, however, there is no archaeological evidence of destruction for some 300 years, confirming the biblical indication that the Hebrews did not take the city at the time of the Conquest and that the inhabitants lived peaceably among the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, Solomon rebuilt Shechem as a provincial capital, but it suffered great destruction late in the 10th century, probably at the hands of Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Palestine in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25). Shortly thereafter, Jeroboam I refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Either he or a successor built a government warehouse on the ruins of the temple. Israelite Shechem met its end at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, just before the destruction of Samaria, and the town was virtually uninhabited for about 400 years.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth century, Alexander the Great established a camp on the site for his soldiers, and subsequently the Samaritans moved from Samaria and settled there. They built their temple on Mt Gerizim. John Hyrcanus probably destroyed Shechem for the last time in 128 <span>BC<\/span>. His violent opposition to the Samaritans involved destruction of their temple on Mt Gerizim and of Samaria at the same time.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHECHEM (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilometers) northwest. Although strategically located—the town controlled all roads through the central hill country of Palestine—it was without natural defenses and required extensive fortifications.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalReferences\">Biblical References<\/p>\n<p>Shechem first appears in the Bible as the initial campsite of Abram after he entered Canaan from Mesopotamia. There God promised him the land of Canaan, and there Abram built his first altar in the land (Gn 12:6-7). After Jacob’s 20-year sojourn in northern Mesopotamia at Paddan-aram, he returned to Shechem and bought a piece of land. By this time, the place was already a walled city with a gate (34:20, 24). After the defilement of their sister Dinah, Simeon and Levi massacred Shechem’s male population in revenge. Years later, when the patriarchal family was living in the Hebron area, Joseph went to Shechem to look for his brothers (37:12-14).<\/p>\n<p>After the Conquest, the ceremony of antiphonal blessing and cursing on Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal, respectively, was fulfilled in the vicinity of Shechem (Jos 8:30-35). In the division and settlement of the land, Shechem became one of the cities of refuge (20:7; 21:21) and one of the 48 Levitical cities (21:21). There Joshua delivered his farewell address (24:1, 25), and the bones of Joseph were buried on the land Jacob had bought there (v 32).<\/p>\n<p>During the unsettled days of the judges, Gideon’s son Abimelech set himself up as king of Israel there, at first with the support of the inhabitants. But a later revolt against him resulted in destruction of the city (Jgs 9:1-7, 23-57). Rehoboam was crowned there just before the split of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:1), and Jeroboam, first king of the northern kingdom, rebuilt the city and made it the first capital of the kingdom.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>Excavations reveal that the earliest settlement at the site dates back to the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>, but the first significant settlement occurred during the first half of the second millennium and was the work of Amorites or Hyksos. The Hyksos surrounded the city with an immense sloping embankment about 80 feet (24.4 meters) wide and 20 feet (6.1 meters) high, upon which they built a brick wall. There was a two-entry gate on the east side and a three-entry gate on the northwest side. On the acropolis they built what has been interpreted as a fortress temple, which was rebuilt several times and finally destroyed by the Egyptians in about 1550 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>About a century later, the Canaanites rebuilt Shechem on a smaller scale. A new fortress temple was built on the ruins of the old one and measured 53 feet (16.2 meters) wide and 41 feet (12.5 meters) deep, with an entrance on the long side. It had three sacred standing stones next to an altar in the open court. This temple is believed to be the house of Baal-berith destroyed by Abimelech about 1150 <span>BC<\/span> (Jgs 9:3-4, 46), and its sacred area was never rebuilt. Before that, however, there is no archaeological evidence of destruction for some 300 years, confirming the biblical indication that the Hebrews did not take the city at the time of the Conquest and that the inhabitants lived peaceably among the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p>Evidently, Solomon rebuilt Shechem as a provincial capital, but it suffered great destruction late in the 10th century, probably at the hands of Shishak of Egypt when he invaded Palestine in 926 <span>BC<\/span> (1 Kgs 14:25). Shortly thereafter, Jeroboam I refortified the city and made it the capital of the kingdom of Israel. Either he or a successor built a government warehouse on the ruins of the temple. Israelite Shechem met its end at the hands of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V in 724 <span>BC<\/span>, just before the destruction of Samaria, and the town was virtually uninhabited for about 400 years.<\/p>\n<p>In the fourth century, Alexander the Great established a camp on the site for his soldiers, and subsequently the Samaritans moved from Samaria and settled there. They built their temple on Mt Gerizim. John Hyrcanus probably destroyed Shechem for the last time in 128 <span>BC<\/span>. His violent opposition to the Samaritans involved destruction of their temple on Mt Gerizim and of Samaria at the same time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHECHEM (Place) Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilome...","summary_en":"SHECHEM (Place) Town in the center of western Palestine, near the watershed that separates the waters that flow to the Jordan from those that descend to the Mediterranean. The site is 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Jerusalem at the eastern entrance to the pass between Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim. The ancient town stood on the lower southeastern slope or shoulder of Mt Ebal, hence the meaning of the name (Shechem = shoulder). Samaria, later capital of Israel, was about eight miles (12.9 kilome...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45798,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","summary_en":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73424,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","summary_en":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101050,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","summary_en":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128676,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:3","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:3-5<\/strong> Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local <em>temple of Baal-berith<\/em>, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","summary_en":"9:3-5 Abimelech’s appeal raised funding from the local temple of Baal-berith, the worship center for a mixed Canaanite-Israelite religious cult.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":10275,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"El-Berith*","title_en":"El-Berith*","content_ro":"<h3>EL-BERITH*<\/h3>\n<p>Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EL-BERITH*<\/h3>\n<p>Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"EL-BERITH* Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).","summary_en":"EL-BERITH* Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16910,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"House of God","title_en":"House of God","content_ro":"<h3>HOUSE OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Common phrase used in the ancient Near Eastern world for a structure used to accommodate a deity or his servants. In the OT it referred to the tabernacle (Dt 23:18; 1 Chr 6:31-32), Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:11-20; 12:27; Jer 20:1), national shrines, or pagan temples (Jgs 9:4; 2 Kgs 10:21).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the OT custom of referring to the temple as the “house of God” was still employed (Mt 12:4; Mk 2:26; 11:17; Lk 6:4; Jn 2:16-17), but with some significant changes. After Christ’s ascension, the church viewed itself as the house of God (1 Cor 3:9; Heb 3:6; 1 Pt 2:5; 4:17). God no longer dwelt in buildings made by human hands but in the lives of those who confess Jesus as Lord.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HOUSE OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Common phrase used in the ancient Near Eastern world for a structure used to accommodate a deity or his servants. In the OT it referred to the tabernacle (Dt 23:18; 1 Chr 6:31-32), Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:11-20; 12:27; Jer 20:1), national shrines, or pagan temples (Jgs 9:4; 2 Kgs 10:21).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the OT custom of referring to the temple as the “house of God” was still employed (Mt 12:4; Mk 2:26; 11:17; Lk 6:4; Jn 2:16-17), but with some significant changes. After Christ’s ascension, the church viewed itself as the house of God (1 Cor 3:9; Heb 3:6; 1 Pt 2:5; 4:17). God no longer dwelt in buildings made by human hands but in the lives of those who confess Jesus as Lord.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HOUSE OF GOD Common phrase used in the ancient Near Eastern world for a structure used to accommodate a deity or his servants. In the OT it referred to the tabernacle (Dt 23:18; 1 Chr 6:31-32), Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:11-20; 12:27; Jer 20:1), national shrines, or pagan temples (Jgs 9:4; 2 Kgs 10:21). In NT times the OT custom of referring to the temple as the “house of God” was still employed (Mt 12:4; Mk 2:26; 11:17; Lk 6:4; Jn 2:16-17), but with some significant changes. After Christ’s as...","summary_en":"HOUSE OF GOD Common phrase used in the ancient Near Eastern world for a structure used to accommodate a deity or his servants. In the OT it referred to the tabernacle (Dt 23:18; 1 Chr 6:31-32), Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 8:11-20; 12:27; Jer 20:1), national shrines, or pagan temples (Jgs 9:4; 2 Kgs 10:21). In NT times the OT custom of referring to the temple as the “house of God” was still employed (Mt 12:4; Mk 2:26; 11:17; Lk 6:4; Jn 2:16-17), but with some significant changes. After Christ’s as...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21325,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Judges","title_en":"Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","summary_en":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":32292,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Raca*","title_en":"Raca*","content_ro":"<h3>RACA*<\/h3>\n<p>Derogatory expression used by Jews of the first century <span>AD<\/span> to show open contempt for another. <em>Raca<\/em> is derived from an Aramaic and Hebrew term meaning “empty” or “worthless.” Literally meaning “empty-headed,” <em>raca<\/em> probably insinuates an intellectual stupidity or inferiority rather than a moral deficiency. In the OT it is comparable to the worthless lot that Abimelech hired to follow him (Jgs 9:4), the idle men who gathered around Jephthah (11:3), and the scoundrels who joined up with Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:7). Michal accused David of acting like one of the vulgar fellows [<em>raca<\/em>] who shamelessly uncovered himself (2 Sm 6:20). Rabbinic literature used this term to describe an immoral, untrained person.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned against calling a brother <em>“Raca!”<\/em> (Mt 5:22, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). According to Jesus, the perpetrator of the insult was to be judged by the highest court of the land and punished by its severest penalty. The commandment against murder (Ex 20:13) not only prohibited the deed itself but also the thoughts of unrighteous anger and expressions of unwarranted contempt.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RACA*<\/h3>\n<p>Derogatory expression used by Jews of the first century <span>AD<\/span> to show open contempt for another. <em>Raca<\/em> is derived from an Aramaic and Hebrew term meaning “empty” or “worthless.” Literally meaning “empty-headed,” <em>raca<\/em> probably insinuates an intellectual stupidity or inferiority rather than a moral deficiency. In the OT it is comparable to the worthless lot that Abimelech hired to follow him (Jgs 9:4), the idle men who gathered around Jephthah (11:3), and the scoundrels who joined up with Jeroboam (2 Chr 13:7). Michal accused David of acting like one of the vulgar fellows [<em>raca<\/em>] who shamelessly uncovered himself (2 Sm 6:20). Rabbinic literature used this term to describe an immoral, untrained person.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus warned against calling a brother <em>“Raca!”<\/em> (Mt 5:22, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). According to Jesus, the perpetrator of the insult was to be judged by the highest court of the land and punished by its severest penalty. The commandment against murder (Ex 20:13) not only prohibited the deed itself but also the thoughts of unrighteous anger and expressions of unwarranted contempt.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RACA* Derogatory expression used by Jews of the first century AD to show open contempt for another. Raca is derived from an Aramaic and Hebrew term meaning “empty” or “worthless.” Literally meaning “empty-headed,” raca probably insinuates an intellectual stupidity or inferiority rather than a moral deficiency. In the OT it is comparable to the worthless lot that Abimelech hired to follow him (Jgs 9:4), the idle men who gathered around Jephthah (11:3), and the scoundrels who joined up with Jer...","summary_en":"RACA* Derogatory expression used by Jews of the first century AD to show open contempt for another. Raca is derived from an Aramaic and Hebrew term meaning “empty” or “worthless.” Literally meaning “empty-headed,” raca probably insinuates an intellectual stupidity or inferiority rather than a moral deficiency. In the OT it is comparable to the worthless lot that Abimelech hired to follow him (Jgs 9:4), the idle men who gathered around Jephthah (11:3), and the scoundrels who joined up with Jer...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45799,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","summary_en":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73425,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","summary_en":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101051,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","summary_en":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128677,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:4","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:4<\/strong> True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to <em>reckless troublemakers<\/em> like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","summary_en":"9:4 True leaders do not buy loyalty and they appeal to the noble in society, not to reckless troublemakers like Abimelech’s mercenary followers.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":20905,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jotham","title_en":"Jotham","content_ro":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","summary_en":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45800,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","summary_en":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73426,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","summary_en":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101052,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","summary_en":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128678,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:5","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:5<\/strong> The murder of the <em>seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone<\/em> was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • <em>youngest brother . . . escaped:<\/em> Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","summary_en":"9:5 The murder of the seventy . . . sons of Gideon . . . on one stone was probably some kind of ritual slaying. • youngest brother . . . escaped: Cp. 2 Kgs 11:1-3.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":4524,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beth-Millo","title_en":"Beth-Millo","content_ro":"<h3>BETH-MILLO<\/h3>\n<p>House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BETH-MILLO<\/h3>\n<p>House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BETH-MILLO House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).","summary_en":"BETH-MILLO House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25761,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Millo","title_en":"Millo","content_ro":"<h3>MILLO<\/h3>\n<li>1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. <em>See<\/em> Beth-millo.<\/li>\n<li>2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27).<\/li>\n<p>Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 Chr 32:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MILLO<\/h3>\n<li>1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. <em>See<\/em> Beth-millo.<\/li>\n<li>2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27).<\/li>\n<p>Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 Chr 32:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MILLO 1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. See Beth-millo. 2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27). Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 C...","summary_en":"MILLO 1. Earthen embankment or fortification mentioned in Judges 9:6, 20. See Beth-millo. 2. Fortress or embankment mentioned in connection with the construction of the city of David (2 Sm 5:9; 1 Chr 11:8). Solomon apparently either rebuilt or expanded this fortification (1 Kgs 9:15; 11:27). Two kings of Judah are mentioned in connection with this structure: Joash was slain in “the house of Millo” (2 Kgs 12:20), and Hezekiah strengthened Millo due to the threat of invasion by Sennacherib (2 C...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28000,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Oak of the Pillar","title_en":"Oak of the Pillar","content_ro":"<h3>OAK OF THE PILLAR<\/h3>\n<p>Sacred meeting place in Shechem where the citizens of that city and the inhabitants of Beth-millo made Abimelech king (Jgs 9:6, <span>asv<\/span>, <span>nas<\/span>). It is perhaps identifiable with the Oak of Moreh. <em>See<\/em> Moreh, Oak of; Plain of the Pillar.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OAK OF THE PILLAR<\/h3>\n<p>Sacred meeting place in Shechem where the citizens of that city and the inhabitants of Beth-millo made Abimelech king (Jgs 9:6, <span>asv<\/span>, <span>nas<\/span>). It is perhaps identifiable with the Oak of Moreh. <em>See<\/em> Moreh, Oak of; Plain of the Pillar.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OAK OF THE PILLAR Sacred meeting place in Shechem where the citizens of that city and the inhabitants of Beth-millo made Abimelech king (Jgs 9:6, asv, nas). It is perhaps identifiable with the Oak of Moreh. See Moreh, Oak of; Plain of the Pillar.","summary_en":"OAK OF THE PILLAR Sacred meeting place in Shechem where the citizens of that city and the inhabitants of Beth-millo made Abimelech king (Jgs 9:6, asv, nas). It is perhaps identifiable with the Oak of Moreh. See Moreh, Oak of; Plain of the Pillar.","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30527,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plain of the Pillar*","title_en":"Plain of the Pillar*","content_ro":"<h3>PLAIN OF THE PILLAR*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV for “oak of the pillar,” a sacred tree at Shechem, in Judges 9:6. <em>See<\/em> Oak of the Pillar.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PLAIN OF THE PILLAR*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV for “oak of the pillar,” a sacred tree at Shechem, in Judges 9:6. <em>See<\/em> Oak of the Pillar.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PLAIN OF THE PILLAR* KJV for “oak of the pillar,” a sacred tree at Shechem, in Judges 9:6. See Oak of the Pillar.","summary_en":"PLAIN OF THE PILLAR* KJV for “oak of the pillar,” a sacred tree at Shechem, in Judges 9:6. See Oak of the Pillar.","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45801,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:6","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","summary_en":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73427,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:6","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","summary_en":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101053,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:6","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","summary_en":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128679,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:6","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:6<\/strong> <em>Beth-millo<\/em> (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","summary_en":"9:6 Beth-millo (“house of filling”) was probably an elevated terrace on which an inner keep or tower was built (cp. 2 Sam 5:9; 1 Kgs 9:15, 24). The irony is thick: Abimelech—empty of divine appointment, priestly anointing, and popular acclaim—met at the “house of filling.” His kingship was a sham.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":8338,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cursed Curse","title_en":"Cursed Curse","content_ro":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CURSE, CURSED<\/h3>\n<p>Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PaganBeliefs\">Pagan Beliefs<\/p>\n<p>Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work calamity on one’s enemies. In some pagan cultures, curses were written on clay jars that were then smashed, symbolically initiating or effecting the intended curse.<\/p>\n<p>Tombs were protected against would-be desecrators by means of curses. Royal inscriptions were protected by maledictions aimed at anyone who might alter, destroy, or defy the written decree (Ezr 6:11-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinOldTestamentTimes\">Curses in Old Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Among the Hebrews a curse, valid only within a covenant framework overseen by God, was spoken for the sake of justice. In the OT the curse was an integral part of a covenant relationship—between God and the community, between God and an individual, or among members of the community. To break the terms of a covenant was to merit the covenant curse or curses. A curse invoked under other conditions was powerless. “Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight” (Prv 26:2, <span>rsv<\/span>). A curse could be retracted by pronouncing a blessing (Ex 12:32; Jgs 17:1-2; 2 Sm 21:1-3).<\/p>\n<p>The Mosaic law forbade the cursing of parents (Ex 21:17; cf. Prv 20:20; Mt 15:4), the ruler (Ex 22:28), and the deaf (Lv 19:14). A man who suspected his wife of unfaithfulness could require that she submit to a test administered by the priest that would result in a curse upon her if she was guilty (Nm 5:11-31). Individuals might pronounce a curse upon themselves to show the truthfulness of their assertions or promises (Nm 5:19-22; Jb 31:7-10, 16-22; Ps 137:5-6). In the NT the apostle Peter followed the OT practice when he used a curse to deny that he knew Jesus (Mk 14:71). Certain men who wished to kill the apostle Paul proved their sincerity by such a solemn curse (Acts 23:12, 14, 21). Cursing God was punishable by death (Lv 24:10-16; cf. Ex 22:28; Is 8:21-22).<\/p>\n<p>Curses in Bible history include God’s curse on the serpent, Adam, and Eve (Gn 3:14-19); on Cain (4:11-12); on those who might curse the patriarch Abraham and his descendants (12:3); and on those who put their trust in human strength instead of in the Lord (Jer 17:5). When the people of Israel passed through Moab on their way to the Promised Land, Moab’s king, Balak, hired Balaam to curse the Israelites; he and Balaam learned, however, that they could not curse those whom God had blessed (Nm 22–24). Joshua cursed anyone who might try to rebuild Jericho (Jos 6:26; fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34). King Saul made a curse that almost cost his son Jonathan’s life (1 Sm 14:24, 43-45). Many other curses are mentioned in the OT (see, e.g., Gn 9:25; 49:5-7; Jos 9:22-23; Jgs 9:7-21, 57; 2 Sm 16:5-13; 1 Kgs 21:17-24; 2 Kgs 2:24; Mal 2:2; 4:6). The pronouncement of “woe” (<span>nlt<\/span> “destruction”) is also the language of curse (Is 5:8-23; cf. Mt 23:13-33, where “alas” and “woe” can be used synonymously and may be either an exclamation of sorrow or of impending doom and calamity).<\/p>\n<p>Psalm 109 contains a lengthy imprecation against the psalmist’s enemies, evidently because they had spoken some words against him falsely (see also Pss 58:6-11; 69:19-28; 143:12). The prophet Jeremiah was not averse to calling on God to punish his tormentors (Jer 11:20; 12:3; 15:15; 17:18; 18:21-22; 20:11-12) or asking God not to forgive them (18:23). Such imprecations against one’s enemies are difficult for Christians today to understand because they contrast sharply with the NT commands to “bless those who curse you” (Lk 6:28; cf. Rom 12:14). Jesus’ injunction to “love your enemies” (Mt 5:44) may be intended to point beyond the cursing practiced in the OT to a fuller understanding of God’s command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.<\/p>\n<h5>Covenant Curses<\/h5>\n<p>Protection of a contract or treaty by invoking a curse on the violator was common in OT times. Sometimes a covenant was sealed by cutting up an animal and having the covenanting individuals walk between the severed pieces; the slain animal symbolized the curse to befall the violator. God agreed to submit to such a curse on himself if he broke the covenant he made with the patriarch Abraham (Gn 15:7-21). Later, God accused the leaders and people of Israel of breaking their covenant with him and warned them of the consequences to follow (Jer 34:18-19). An essential part of the covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai was the promise of blessings for keeping the covenant and curses for breaking it (Dt 11:26-28; 27:15-26; 28:15-68; 30:19; cf. Lv 26:3-39). Israel suffered those curses in the time of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel; the covenant breakers, including the king, were threatened with a curse (Jer 11:3; Ez 17:11-21).<\/p>\n<h5>The Ban on “Devoted Things”<\/h5>\n<p>A special kind of curse was the ban or anathema. Strictly speaking, it was a vow to devote persons, animals, or objects under such a curse to God. In some cases the priests could use objects that had fallen under the ban (Nm 18:14; Ez 44:29), but that provision did not apply to living beings. All persons or animals under the ban were sacrificed or destroyed (Lv 27:28-29). The ban was commonly used in Israel’s wars against its pagan neighbors. Sometimes everything was declared anathema (Jos 6:17-19), but normally only persons and heathen images were destroyed (Dt 2:34; 3:6; 7:2, 25-26—not even the melted gold of images was to be kept). To violate the ban by preserving any part of the cursed things was to come under the ban oneself. Because Achan did not respect the ban placed upon Jericho, the terms of that curse came upon all Israel until Achan confessed and was executed (Jos 7).<\/p>\n<p>After the exile, the Jews did not practice the anathema (or ban) by putting people to death; people who violated a curse were excommunicated and put out of the congregation of Israel (Ezr 10:8). That meant that the person was no longer part of God’s people and was considered “dead.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CursesinNewTestamentTimes\">Curses in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>Jewish synagogues practiced excommunication, or anathema, in the NT period (Lk 6:22; Jn 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Later, Christians excommunicated persons by declaring them outside of the redeemed community (Mt 18:17) or “delivered to Satan” (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tm 1:20). Both practices stemmed from the OT ban. Unlike that curse, however, the excommunication could be removed as soon as the person repented.<\/p>\n<p>Since the anathema branded a person as “rejected” or “cursed by God,” Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, tried to compel Christians to renounce Christ by calling him accursed (cf. Acts 26:11). Later, as an apostle, Paul (Saul) warned that no one speaking by the Spirit of God could call Jesus accursed (1 Cor 12:3). Paul pronounced anathema (destined for judgment and perdition) upon anyone who preached another gospel than the one he and the other apostles preached (Gal 1:8-9). Paul said he wished he could be accursed, cut off from salvation and the people of God, if that could lead to the salvation of his fellow Israelites (Rom 9:3). His desire reflected the love of Christ, who accepted the “curse of the law” upon himself in submitting to suffering and death on the cross in order to redeem human beings from that curse (Gal 3:8-14; cf. Dt 21:22-23). The NT promises that a time will come when “there shall no longer be any curse” (Rv 22:3, <span>nasb<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> War, Holy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","summary_en":"CURSE, CURSED Invocation of evil or injury against one’s enemies. As practiced in Bible times, cursing was the opposite of blessing and should not be confused with profanity in the modern sense. Pagan Beliefs Curses and blessings were linked to the ancient pagan belief that spirits of “the gods” could be invoked to act on behalf of a person who repeated certain incantations or performed certain deeds (such as sacrifices). It was thought that a spoken curse possessed an occult power to work ca...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20907,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jotham","title_en":"Jotham","content_ro":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","summary_en":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21326,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Judges","title_en":"Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","summary_en":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33103,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Riddle","title_en":"Riddle","content_ro":"<h3>RIDDLE<\/h3>\n<p>Word puzzle widely used and esteemed in the ancient world, both as an everyday amusement and as a test of wisdom at a more serious level. The point of a riddle was the discovery of a concealed meaning. Riddles, therefore, may be broadly distinguished from fables, which, like Jotham’s celebrated plant fable (Jgs 9:7-15), contained an easily discerned significance. Obviously, there is an intermediate area where there is no sharp differentiation. For instance, Ezekiel’s riddle (Ez 17) has sometimes been classified as a plant fable.<\/p>\n<p>Samson’s riddle at his wedding feast is the best-known biblical riddle (Jgs 14). Probably it was a form of diversion used on such occasions (vv 12-13). The riddle took the form of a couplet: “From the one who eats came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet” (v 14). Samson’s 30 young men threatened his betrothed, who wheedled the secret from him: “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?” (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>Solomon’s wisdom was demonstrated in his ability to answer the “hard questions” (lit., “riddles”) of the queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1-4). His reputation for this kind of wisdom is further demonstrated by Ben Sirach: “Your soul covered the earth, and you filled it with parables and riddles” (Ecclus 47:15).<\/p>\n<p>Josephus notes a contest of wits between Solomon and Hiram, with riddles being exchanged. Solomon won the earlier exchanges, but Hiram finally outwitted him by enlisting outside help (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 8.5.5). Such wisdom to solve riddles was, understandably, claimed by Israel’s wise men (e.g., Ps 49:4; Prv 1:6). In Daniel 8:23-24 there is the apocalyptic vision of “a master of intrigue [who] will rise to power” (lit. “one who understands riddles”). Daniel himself possessed the same ability to “interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve difficult problems” (Dn 5:12).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT riddles figure infrequently. The various “hard sayings” of Jesus (e.g., Jn 6:60) are difficult to accept and are equally as hard to understand. Possibly the only true riddle is the number of the beast, 666 (Rv 13:18). Various attempts have been made to identify a person, after the pattern of numerical references in contemporary literature. Of these, the emperor Nero is the most plausible candidate.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RIDDLE<\/h3>\n<p>Word puzzle widely used and esteemed in the ancient world, both as an everyday amusement and as a test of wisdom at a more serious level. The point of a riddle was the discovery of a concealed meaning. Riddles, therefore, may be broadly distinguished from fables, which, like Jotham’s celebrated plant fable (Jgs 9:7-15), contained an easily discerned significance. Obviously, there is an intermediate area where there is no sharp differentiation. For instance, Ezekiel’s riddle (Ez 17) has sometimes been classified as a plant fable.<\/p>\n<p>Samson’s riddle at his wedding feast is the best-known biblical riddle (Jgs 14). Probably it was a form of diversion used on such occasions (vv 12-13). The riddle took the form of a couplet: “From the one who eats came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet” (v 14). Samson’s 30 young men threatened his betrothed, who wheedled the secret from him: “What is sweeter than honey? What is stronger than a lion?” (v 18).<\/p>\n<p>Solomon’s wisdom was demonstrated in his ability to answer the “hard questions” (lit., “riddles”) of the queen of Sheba (1 Kgs 10:1-4). His reputation for this kind of wisdom is further demonstrated by Ben Sirach: “Your soul covered the earth, and you filled it with parables and riddles” (Ecclus 47:15).<\/p>\n<p>Josephus notes a contest of wits between Solomon and Hiram, with riddles being exchanged. Solomon won the earlier exchanges, but Hiram finally outwitted him by enlisting outside help (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 8.5.5). Such wisdom to solve riddles was, understandably, claimed by Israel’s wise men (e.g., Ps 49:4; Prv 1:6). In Daniel 8:23-24 there is the apocalyptic vision of “a master of intrigue [who] will rise to power” (lit. “one who understands riddles”). Daniel himself possessed the same ability to “interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve difficult problems” (Dn 5:12).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT riddles figure infrequently. The various “hard sayings” of Jesus (e.g., Jn 6:60) are difficult to accept and are equally as hard to understand. Possibly the only true riddle is the number of the beast, 666 (Rv 13:18). Various attempts have been made to identify a person, after the pattern of numerical references in contemporary literature. Of these, the emperor Nero is the most plausible candidate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RIDDLE Word puzzle widely used and esteemed in the ancient world, both as an everyday amusement and as a test of wisdom at a more serious level. The point of a riddle was the discovery of a concealed meaning. Riddles, therefore, may be broadly distinguished from fables, which, like Jotham’s celebrated plant fable (Jgs 9:7-15), contained an easily discerned significance. Obviously, there is an intermediate area where there is no sharp differentiation. For instance, Ezekiel’s riddle (Ez 17) has...","summary_en":"RIDDLE Word puzzle widely used and esteemed in the ancient world, both as an everyday amusement and as a test of wisdom at a more serious level. The point of a riddle was the discovery of a concealed meaning. Riddles, therefore, may be broadly distinguished from fables, which, like Jotham’s celebrated plant fable (Jgs 9:7-15), contained an easily discerned significance. Obviously, there is an intermediate area where there is no sharp differentiation. For instance, Ezekiel’s riddle (Ez 17) has...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45802,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","summary_en":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45803,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","summary_en":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73428,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","summary_en":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73429,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","summary_en":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101054,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","summary_en":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101055,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","summary_en":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128680,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7-21<\/strong> <em>Jotham<\/em> told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed <em>Abimelech<\/em> and <em>the leading citizens of Shechem<\/em> (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","summary_en":"9:7-21 Jotham told a fable (a story in which plants and animals take on human attributes to make a moral point) to show what was happening (9:7-15). He then cursed Abimelech and the leading citizens of Shechem (9:16-21). If they had acted in bad faith, it would become evident (9:56-57).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128681,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:7","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:7<\/strong> <em>Mount Gerizim<\/em> was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","summary_en":"9:7 Mount Gerizim was the mountain of blessing opposite Mount Ebal, the mountain of cursing (Deut 11:29). Gerizim, situated immediately south of Shechem, was a natural stage for Jotham’s speech and also allowed him to escape when he was finished.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":2173,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Anoint","title_en":"Anoint","content_ro":"<h3>ANOINT<\/h3>\n<p>To pour oil or ointment onto a person or object in a ritualistic fashion.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for anoint first appears in Genesis 31:13, where it refers to Jacob pouring oil on the stone of Bethel (Gn 28:18-19). At a later time the ceremony was repeated (Gn 35:9-15). The ceremony was clearly religious, signifying induction into sacred use. As a religious act, the anointing was meant to endow the anointed one with the quality of the deity involved. From ancient times the Hebrews inaugurated officers of their national community by pouring special oil on the head of the person designated for office. The same practice was used to set objects apart for special divine use.<\/p>\n<p>Scripture supplies few details of the ceremonial anointings of official things and persons. Jacob simply poured oil on a rock with an accompanying pronouncement. When anointing Israel’s first king, the prophet-judge Samuel took Saul aside for instruction (1 Sm 9:25-27), then “took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him and said, ‘Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince over his people Israel’” (1 Sm 10:1, <span>rsv<\/span>). For anointing the tabernacle and its priests, a special oil was compounded and used only for that sacred purpose. Skilled perfume makers blended the choicest spices (myrrh, cinnamon, sweet cane, cassia) in olive oil (Ex 30:22-25). The Lord specified that everything set apart for God—the tabernacle, the ark, the table and its instruments, the lampstand and utensils, the incense altar and main altar, the washbasin—was to be anointed. Aaron the high priest and his sons the priests were also to be anointed (Ex 30:26-32). The result was a holy place with holy furnishings, holy implements of worship, and holy ministers.<\/p>\n<p>The offices of prophet, priest, and king were those associated with anointing in the nation of Israel. Prophets were sometimes, but not invariably, inducted by official anointing (1 Kgs 19:16). They could be referred to as God’s anointed ones (1 Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15). At the institution of the levitical priesthood, all the priests were anointed to their offices, the sons of Aaron as well as Aaron himself (Ex 40:12-15; Nm 3:3). Afterward, anointing was not repeated at the consecration of ordinary priests, but was especially reserved for the high priest (Ex 29:29; Lv 16:32).<\/p>\n<p>Before they had a king of their own, the Israelites were aware of anointing as a mode of inaugurating kings (Jgs 9:8,15). Anointing became a divinely ordained rite accompanying induction of all the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Kgs 9:1-6; 11:12) from Saul onward (1 Sm 10:1; 1 Kgs 1:39). David’s anointing took place in three stages (1 Sm 16:1, 13; 2 Sm 2:4; 5:1-4). “The Lord’s anointed” or some similar phrase became a common designation for Hebrew kings (1 Sm 12:3-5; 2 Sm 1:14-16; Ps 89:38, 51; Lam 4:20).<\/p>\n<p>Anointing, however, had more than religious or ritualistic significance. Both the Egyptians and the Syrians practiced anointing for medical and cosmetic reasons, and the Scriptures indicate that such nonreligious practice was also a part of Israelite customs (2 Sm 12:20; Ru 3:3; Mi 6:15). In fact, failure to anoint or perfume oneself indicated mourning or distress (2 Sm 14:2; Dn 10:3; Mt 6:17).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, anointing of the sick accompanied by prayer for healing by local church elders is recommended when requested by a sick person (Jas 5:14-16). Anointing with oil was also a part of the apostles’ healing ministry (Mk 6:12-13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANOINT<\/h3>\n<p>To pour oil or ointment onto a person or object in a ritualistic fashion.<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for anoint first appears in Genesis 31:13, where it refers to Jacob pouring oil on the stone of Bethel (Gn 28:18-19). At a later time the ceremony was repeated (Gn 35:9-15). The ceremony was clearly religious, signifying induction into sacred use. As a religious act, the anointing was meant to endow the anointed one with the quality of the deity involved. From ancient times the Hebrews inaugurated officers of their national community by pouring special oil on the head of the person designated for office. The same practice was used to set objects apart for special divine use.<\/p>\n<p>Scripture supplies few details of the ceremonial anointings of official things and persons. Jacob simply poured oil on a rock with an accompanying pronouncement. When anointing Israel’s first king, the prophet-judge Samuel took Saul aside for instruction (1 Sm 9:25-27), then “took a vial of oil and poured it on his head, and kissed him and said, ‘Has not the Lord anointed you to be prince over his people Israel’” (1 Sm 10:1, <span>rsv<\/span>). For anointing the tabernacle and its priests, a special oil was compounded and used only for that sacred purpose. Skilled perfume makers blended the choicest spices (myrrh, cinnamon, sweet cane, cassia) in olive oil (Ex 30:22-25). The Lord specified that everything set apart for God—the tabernacle, the ark, the table and its instruments, the lampstand and utensils, the incense altar and main altar, the washbasin—was to be anointed. Aaron the high priest and his sons the priests were also to be anointed (Ex 30:26-32). The result was a holy place with holy furnishings, holy implements of worship, and holy ministers.<\/p>\n<p>The offices of prophet, priest, and king were those associated with anointing in the nation of Israel. Prophets were sometimes, but not invariably, inducted by official anointing (1 Kgs 19:16). They could be referred to as God’s anointed ones (1 Chr 16:22; Ps 105:15). At the institution of the levitical priesthood, all the priests were anointed to their offices, the sons of Aaron as well as Aaron himself (Ex 40:12-15; Nm 3:3). Afterward, anointing was not repeated at the consecration of ordinary priests, but was especially reserved for the high priest (Ex 29:29; Lv 16:32).<\/p>\n<p>Before they had a king of their own, the Israelites were aware of anointing as a mode of inaugurating kings (Jgs 9:8,15). Anointing became a divinely ordained rite accompanying induction of all the kings of Judah and Israel (2 Kgs 9:1-6; 11:12) from Saul onward (1 Sm 10:1; 1 Kgs 1:39). David’s anointing took place in three stages (1 Sm 16:1, 13; 2 Sm 2:4; 5:1-4). “The Lord’s anointed” or some similar phrase became a common designation for Hebrew kings (1 Sm 12:3-5; 2 Sm 1:14-16; Ps 89:38, 51; Lam 4:20).<\/p>\n<p>Anointing, however, had more than religious or ritualistic significance. Both the Egyptians and the Syrians practiced anointing for medical and cosmetic reasons, and the Scriptures indicate that such nonreligious practice was also a part of Israelite customs (2 Sm 12:20; Ru 3:3; Mi 6:15). In fact, failure to anoint or perfume oneself indicated mourning or distress (2 Sm 14:2; Dn 10:3; Mt 6:17).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, anointing of the sick accompanied by prayer for healing by local church elders is recommended when requested by a sick person (Jas 5:14-16). Anointing with oil was also a part of the apostles’ healing ministry (Mk 6:12-13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANOINT To pour oil or ointment onto a person or object in a ritualistic fashion. The Hebrew word for anoint first appears in Genesis 31:13, where it refers to Jacob pouring oil on the stone of Bethel (Gn 28:18-19). At a later time the ceremony was repeated (Gn 35:9-15). The ceremony was clearly religious, signifying induction into sacred use. As a religious act, the anointing was meant to endow the anointed one with the quality of the deity involved. From ancient times the Hebrews inaugurated...","summary_en":"ANOINT To pour oil or ointment onto a person or object in a ritualistic fashion. The Hebrew word for anoint first appears in Genesis 31:13, where it refers to Jacob pouring oil on the stone of Bethel (Gn 28:18-19). At a later time the ceremony was repeated (Gn 35:9-15). The ceremony was clearly religious, signifying induction into sacred use. As a religious act, the anointing was meant to endow the anointed one with the quality of the deity involved. From ancient times the Hebrews inaugurated...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21204,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Judges","title_en":"Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JUDGES, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Author<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Author\">Author<\/p>\n<p>The book reflects a final editing of the material in the period of the early monarchy. It may well be a polemic for the righteous rule of David over against the kingship of Saul, which was molded by a secular, Canaanite conception of kingship rather than by the law of God. The author was almost certainly not Samuel, as traditionally thought, but a later compiler who relied on ancient written materials.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Though the judges succeeded in giving the tribes some rest from the incursions of surrounding enemies, the Israelites were continually harassed over long periods of time. Scholarly opinion differs on the duration of the period of the judges. The dating of the exodus affects the dating of the beginning of the judges. Those who take an early date for the exodus put the beginning around 1370–1360 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas others propose a date close to the end of the 13th century <span>BC<\/span>. A related issue pertains to the chronology of the judges. Does Judges give a chronological, sequential account of the period, or is the book a representative account of judges from various parts of Canaan and Transjordan who “judged” a region, a tribe, or several tribes simultaneously?<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiteraryFramework\">Literary Framework<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the stories in the book bear the marks of literary creativity. The stories are classics in their own right. The poetry of Deborah’s song (Jgs 5) is very moving, and the fable of Jotham (9:8-15) is a fine example of figurative speech. The care given to the stories is also reflected in the construction of the book. There are two introductions: a political one (Jgs 1:1–2:5) and a socioreligious one (2:6–3:6). The political introduction connects Judges with the story of the Conquest, when the tribes attempted to occupy the land. It prepares the reader for the political and military problems of the era of the judges. The socioreligious introduction explains why Israel had so many adversities, why the institution of the judges arose, and why the Lord never gave Israel the promised lasting rest from its enemies. The main body of the book is the story of the judges (3:7–16:31). References to the minor judges (six in all) are set within the stories of the major judges in increasing frequency. As is evident from the schema, the number of minor judges increased in frequency in proportion to the decrease in number of major judges: two major, one minor; two major, two minor; one major, three minor; one major. There is a total of 12 judges, representative of the 12 tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of the listing of 12 judges, representative of the various parts of Canaan and Transjordan, is to demonstrate that all tribes throughout the conquered territories experienced grave difficulties from a variety of enemies: Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Amalekites, Canaanites, and Philistines. Israel was hard pressed on nearly all its frontiers. The appendixes (chs 17–21), together with the two introductions, form the framework of the book. The political and socioreligious problems (1:1–3:6) are presented by way of several stories in the last chapters. The final editor who gave the book its canonical shape purposefully framed the stories of the judges so as to show lack of movement. The successes of the previous stages in redemptive history came to a standstill in the ebb and flow of the judges. Though the Lord delivered his people in many ways, they returned to the problems described in 1:1–3:6. The appendixes describe Israel’s problems representative of the period of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for deliverance, and God’s raising up of a judge reflects a deuteronomic perspective with its warnings concerning disobedience and judgment. The repetitiveness of the cycle supports the contention of the anonymous narrator that Israel remained unchanged by the grace of God. However, in spite of the moral, religious, and political anarchy as well as the civil wars, the last chapter shows that the tribes are still concerned with each other’s welfare. Though the unity of God’s people has been gravely challenged, the situation is not hopeless. The book ends on a note of hope—hope for a king who may deliver Israel.<\/p>\n\n<p>Thus, there are several purposes of the book: (1) to demonstrate the meaninglessness of this stage in Israel’s development; (2) to explain why the tribes did not occupy all the land promised to the patriarchs; (3) to justify the way of God, who was gracious and patient with Israel’s repeated acts of disobedience; (4) to set forth the legitimacy of a “shepherd” king in contrast to a despotic form of kingship; and (5) to explain the urgent need for a new momentum, lest Israel succumb to the Philistines and intertribal warfare.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>The Political Introduction (1:1–2:5)<\/h5>\n<p>In Joshua 1–12 the warfare under Joshua is portrayed as a mobilization of Canaanite forces against Israel. By the intervention of the Lord, the Canaanite resistance was put down and the land was occupied by the tribes (chs 13–21). Joshua 13–21, however, clearly shows that each tribe had problems ridding its territory of pockets of Canaanite resistance, which were usually centered around heavily guarded and well-fortified cities (cf. 13:2-6, 13; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-18).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua emphasizes the successes and minimizes the problems, whereas the prologue to Judges sets the stage for the whole book by openly addressing Israel’s problems and failures. As the book unfolds, it is precisely these problems and failures that in due time bring Israel to the brink of disaster.<\/p>\n<p>The period of the judges began with the death of Joshua (Jgs 1:1; 2:8-9). The Israelites had inherited a legacy from Joshua: the law of the Lord (Jos 23:6; 24:26), the land, a challenge to obey the Lord (24:14-27), and a promise of God’s presence and help in subduing the Canaanites (23:5, 10).<\/p>\n<h6>Judah and Simeon (Jgs 1:2-20)<\/h6>\n<p>The prominence of Judah and Caleb parallels the position of Judah in Joshua (Jos 14:6–15:63; cf. also the house of Joseph, Jgs 1:22-29; cf. Jos 16–17). Judah was victorious over the cruel Adoni-bezek, who ruled over Bezek, a town of uncertain location. Judah successfully occupied the hill country, the Negev, and the western foothills. They even took Jerusalem, or an outlying suburb identified with Jerusalem (Jos 1:8), but could not retain control there (v 21) until David’s conquest of the city (2 Sm 5:6-9). Judah was victorious over the Canaanites in the region of Hebron, already conquered under Joshua (Jos 10:36). Hebron, also known as Kiriath-arba (“city of four” or “tetrapolis”), was a powerful ally of Jerusalem (v 3) and had been able to rally military support for a new assault on Israel, even after its first defeat. Caleb received Hebron, as Moses had promised (Jgs 1:20; cf. Jos 15:13). After the victory over Hebron, Judah extended its control over the southern hill country by an attack on Debir (Jgs 1:11-15; cf. Jos 15:14-19).<\/p>\n<p>The Kenites (Jgs 1:16), descendants of Jethro and therefore related to Moses by marriage, settled in the Negev around Arad and the City of Palms, which here probably refers to Tamar rather than Jericho.<\/p>\n<p>Judah secured the southern border by a victory over the Canaanites at Hormah (Jgs 1:17; cf. Nm 14:45; 21:3; Dt 1:44) and the coastal plain by victories at Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron. However, Judah’s successes in the coastal plain were resisted by a well-armed Canaanite force (Jgs 1:18-19). It occupied the Judean hill country and the Negev, but could not retain control over the plains. The Philistines were soon to take control over Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron, and incorporate them into their pentapolis.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin (1:21)<\/h6>\n<p>Jerusalem was situated on the border between Judah and Benjamin. Judah took the city or a suburb (Jos 1:8) but was too far removed to retain control over it. Benjamin was too weak to subdue the Jebusites. Only David succeeded in this (2 Sm 5:6-9); he incorporated it into Judah (cf. Jos 15:63), even though it originally was allotted to Benjamin (Jos 18:28).<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph: Ephraim and Manasseh (1:22-29)<\/h6>\n<p>Ephraim took Bethel, known from the patriarchal stories as a significant cultic site (Gn 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:19; 31:13; 35:1-15). However, Manasseh was unsuccessful in taking the fortified cities in the valley of Jezreel (Esdraelon): Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo. These cities controlled traffic along the east-west and north–south roads as well as the important passes through the Carmel range and the ford of the Jordan. Ephraim could not take full possession of the coastal plain, controlled by Gezer. The success of both Ephraim and Manasseh was limited.<\/p>\n<h6>The Other Four Tribes (1:30-36)<\/h6>\n<p>The other four tribes in Canaan receive brief mention. They, too, were only partially successful. Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and especially Dan did not fully succeed in driving out the Canaanites. At best they later subjected most of them to forced labor.<\/p>\n<h6>The Failure of Israel (2:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>The failure to subdue the land and to wipe out the Canaanites and their culture led to intermarriage and idolatry (cf. Ex 23:33; 34:12-16; Nm 33:55; Dt 7:2-5, 16; Jos 23:7, 12).<\/p>\n<p>The identity of “the angel of the Lord” who appears at Bokim is far from certain. It may be a reference to the Lord himself, to an angelic messenger, or to a prophet (cf. Jgs 6:8). He rebuked the people in the prophetic spirit and pronounced God’s judgment as taking the form of continual confrontation between Israel and the Canaanites (2:3). Their weeping and sacrificing were to no avail (2:4-5; cf. Mal 2:13). Israel stood condemned within a generation after Joshua’s death.<\/p>\n<h5>The Theological Introduction (2:6–3:6)<\/h5>\n<p>The theological introduction begins where Joshua left off (Jos 24:28-31). The generation of Joshua was characterized by loyalty, but their loyalty to the Lord did not last long after the excitement of the Conquest and the demonstration of God’s presence (Jgs 2:10). Israel served Canaanite gods (Baal and Astarte) instead. Baal was the storm god, symbolic of rain and fertility, and Astarte was his cohort. The plural (Baals and Ashtaroth, 2:11-13) signifies the many local ways in which the Canaanite gods were worshiped. The religious unity was broken up into a great diversity. Thus Israel angered the Lord (vv 12-14), who sent them enemies and plunderers. Israel was unsuccessful in dealing with them, as Moses and Joshua had forewarned (Dt 28:25, 33; Jos 23:13, 16). The cycle of apostasy, judgment, cry for mercy, and deliverance is found throughout Judges. The people were rooted in the apostasy of their forefathers, even though the previous generation had been sensitive to God. Israel did not submit to the leadership of the judges, except to free itself from the oppressors. In fulfillment of the curses of the covenant, God swore not to give his people rest but to test them and to train them for warfare (Jgs 3:1-4), so that they might learn to respond to the challenges of a real world.<\/p>\n<h5>The Judges of Israel (3:7–16:31)<\/h5>\n<h6>Othniel (3:7-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Othniel is a transitional figure, linking the Conquest and the judges. He had involved himself in the conquest of Kiriath-sepher and was related to Caleb as his cousin and son-in-law (1:13). He repelled the Arameans led by Cushan-rishathaim, so that the land enjoyed peace for some 40 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ehud (3:12-30)<\/h6>\n<p>The Moabites, allied with the Ammonites and Amalekites, came against Israel from the east and oppressed them for 18 years under the leadership of Eglon. Ehud led the mission to bring tribute to Eglon at his palace, located probably by Jericho (the City of Palms). Ehud was uniquely qualified for this mission; being left-handed, he was able to use his double-edged sword in an unsuspecting manner to stab the king. Ehud’s success was the result of careful plotting and the element of surprise. He paid the tribute and left, only to return with a supposed oracle from the gods. The king fell for the deception and was murdered. The delay at the Moabite court gave the Israelites an opportunity to bring their forces together at the fords of the Jordan. Ehud’s success was complete; no Moabite escaped, and Israel enjoyed peace for 80 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Shamgar (3:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Shamgar’s exploits were against the Philistines in the coastal plains. He had a non-Israelite name but was probably an Israelite by birth. Like Samson he fought the Philistines with an unconventional weapon (an ox goad). His name is also mentioned in the song of Deborah (5:6).<\/p>\n<h6>Deborah and Barak (4:1–5:31)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative now turns to the Canaanite aggressors in the north under the leadership of Jabin, king of Hazor, and Sisera, of Harosheth-haggoyim (4:1-3). The ruins of Hazor (Jos 11:13) had been rebuilt, and another Jabin (cf. v 1) ruled over the region. He had regained his military power, as he had as many as 900 chariots of iron. He oppressed Israel for 20 years (Jgs 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>God had a prophetess in Israel who led his people during this dark time (4:4). She rendered judgments under a palm tree in southern Ephraim near Benjamin (v 5). She called on Barak to muster the armies of Naphtali and Zebulun, the tribes affected by the Canaanite raids, and to engage Sisera in a surprise attack by the Kishon River (vv 6-7). Barak’s hesitancy led him to request Deborah’s presence, which resulted in his forfeiture of the honor of killing Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite forces (vv 8-10). The Lord gave success to the surprise attack from Mt Tabor, so that the Canaanites were routed, unable to use their heavy chariots, which were mired down in the swamps of the Jezreel Valley (5:20-22). The Canaanites were routed, and Sisera was killed by Jael, the wife of Heber, a Kenite who had separated from the Kenites around Arad (4:17-18; cf. 1:16). She offered him hospitality, as her family had friendly relations with the Canaanites, but heroically put him to death with a tent peg (4:18-21; 5:26-27). In successive campaigns the Israelites gained freedom from Jabin, until they destroyed his power (4:24).<\/p>\n<p>The song of Deborah (ch 5) celebrates, in poetic fashion, the victory over Jabin. It is one of the oldest poems in the Bible. It praises the God of Israel as the King who comes to protect his covenant people, and before whom the mountains move (5:2-3). He is the God of Mt Sinai (Jgs 5:4-5; cf. Dt 33:2; Ps 68:7-8; Hb 3:3-4). Though the oppressors had despoiled Israel and had made the roads unsafe for travel, and Israel was unable to defend itself (Jgs 5:6-8), the Lord raised up Deborah and Barak to lead the nobles to war (vv 9-13). They came from Ephraim, Benjamin, Zebulun, Issachar, and Naphtali (vv 14-15a, 18), but the Transjordan tribes and Asher did not want to get involved (vv 15b-17). The song then moves to the battle scene, where torrential rains bogged the chariots down (vv 19-23). Jael is celebrated as “most blessed of women,” who used her simple way of life to bring an end to Sisera (vv 24-27). She stands in contrast to Sisera’s mother, who is portrayed with all her culture waiting in vain for Sisera’s return with all of his spoils (vv 28-30). The Lord has used the simple to confound the powerful. The conclusion is a prayer for God’s judgment on all of Israel’s enemies (Jgs 5:31a; cf. Ps 68:1-3).<\/p>\n<h6>Gideon (6:1–8:35)<\/h6>\n<p>Israel’s rest for 40 years (Jgs 5:31b) was disturbed by the invasion of Midianites and Amalekites from the East (6:1-3). They destroyed the economy by invading the country at harvesttime (vv 4-6). In response to Israel’s cry, God sent a prophet with a message similar to that of the angel of the Lord (2:1-5). Then an angel appeared to Gideon and called him to lead the people in battle (6:11-14). The Lord assured him of his presence (v 16) by a sign (vv 17-22). Gideon knew that he had been visited by the Lord and built an altar called “The <span>Lord<\/span> Is Peace” in Ophrah (v 24). He responded by destroying the cultic site dedicated to Baal and Asherah at Ophrah (vv 25-28) and by initiating worship at the new altar (v 28). Baal did not protect his own altar (vv 29-32), even when challenged by Gideon’s father (v 31). Consequently, Gideon was known as Jerubbaal (meaning, “let Baal contend with him,” v 32).<\/p>\n<p>Next, Gideon mustered an army of 32,000 men from Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali (6:35; cf. 7:3b). In order to assure himself of the Lord’s presence, he asked for another sign: the sign of the fleece (6:36-40). It must be kept in mind that Gideon lived in an area in which the wonders of God had been scarce (v 13) and that he, like Moses, needed reassurance that God was with him. God responded to his growing faith. Gideon went forth with a greatly reduced army of 300 against the enemy. Of his original army, 22,000 had left because they were afraid (7:2-3; cf. Dt 20:8). Another 9,700 were sent home, though they were valiant men (7:4-8). After assuring Gideon by a dream of an enemy soldier, God used the 300 in a marvelous way to confound the Midianites (vv 9-15). God gave Israel victory over the Midianite leaders Oreb, Zeeb, Zebah, and Zalmunna (7:16–8:21). Gideon wisely avoided a possible military confrontation with Ephraim (8:1-3), pursued the enemy deep into the Transjordan, and punished the leaders of Succoth and Penuel, who did not assist him (vv 4-9, 13-16).<\/p>\n<p>This glorious victory created a new wave of interest in the idea of kingship. The men of Israel wished to establish the family of Gideon as their royal dynasty (8:22). Gideon refused, and instead wrongly set up an ephod, cast from the gold taken in battle (vv 23-27). The ephod was probably used for cultic practices, possibly divination (cf. 17:5).<\/p>\n<p>Gideon’s era also came to an end. He was God’s instrument, giving Israel rest for 40 years. He fathered 70 sons and died in old age. God had richly blessed him, even though he had led Israel astray with his ephod. Thereafter, Israel returned to Baal worship (8:33-35).<\/p>\n<p>In the wake of Gideon’s era, his son Abimelech attempted to establish dynastic continuity by having himself installed as king at Shechem (9:1-6). With the support of his relatives at Shechem, Abimelech had all his brothers killed except Jotham (vv 4-5). After Abimelech’s coronation, Jotham set forth his opposition to his brother in a proverbial manner (vv 7-20), and went into hiding. Three years later Abimelech’s evil schemes entrapped him when the citizens of Shechem rebelled. He furiously attacked the city and destroyed it. A short time later, however, he was wounded at Thebez by a millstone dropped by a woman from the tower in which she had sought refuge from him. His servant put him out of his misery as per his request. This episode demonstrates how bad a despotic king may be. Again, God’s justice prevailed.<\/p>\n<h6>Tola (10:1-2)<\/h6>\n<p>Tola was a minor judge from Issachar who judged Israel for 23 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jair (10:3-5)<\/h6>\n<p>Jair was a minor judge from Gilead who judged Israel for 22 years.<\/p>\n<h6>Jephthah (10:6–12:7)<\/h6>\n<p>A recapitulation (10:6-16) of the cycle (idolatry, enemies, cry for help, momentary repentance) sets the introduction to the Jephthah narrative. Under attack from the Ammonites, the elders of Gilead requested help from Jephthah (10:17–11:8), who promised to help them on the condition that he remain their leader even after the war (vv 9-10). At a solemn ceremony he becomes their “head” at Mizpah (v 11). Jephthah opened up correspondence with the Ammonite king, in which he argued for Israel’s rights on the basis of the Israelites’ historic claim to the land as granted to them by the Lord (vv 12–27). Instead of going out immediately to war, he hoped that “the <span>Lord<\/span>, the Judge” would settle the dispute (v 27); but the Ammonite king was unimpressed. When the Spirit of God came over him, Jephthah led Israel into battle, but only after making a rash vow. He was victorious but found out that his vow to sacrifice whatever came first out of his house required him to sacrifice his daughter. Debate continues as to whether he offered her up as a human sacrifice or whether she sacrificed marriage (see discussion under Jephthah).<\/p>\n<p>The Ephraimites seemed to have had an insatiable desire for war. Earlier they had complained to Gideon, who successfully defused their threats (8:1-3). Jephthah fought them, however, because the Israelites living in Transjordan had been reviled as “renegades” (12:1-4). Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed by the fords of the Jordan in this civil war. Thereafter, Jephthah ruled for only six years.<\/p>\n<h6>Ibzan (12:8-10)<\/h6>\n<p>Ibzan was a minor judge from Bethlehem who ruled Israel for seven years.<\/p>\n<h6>Elon (12:11)<\/h6>\n<p>A minor judge from Zebulun, Elon ruled Israel for ten years.<\/p>\n<h6>Abdon (12:13-15)<\/h6>\n<p>Abdon was a minor judge from Pirathon, the location of which is uncertain. He ruled for eight years.<\/p>\n<h6>Samson (13:1–16:31)<\/h6>\n<p>Samson’s greatness in the history of redemption is due to his miraculous birth (13:1-24), his service as a Nazirite (13:7; cf. Nm 6:1-21), the repeated overpowering by the Spirit of the Lord (Jgs 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), the single-handed exploits against the Philistines (Ashkelon, 14:19; the fields, 15:1-6; Ramath Etam, 15:7-17; Gaza, 16:1-3, 23-30), and his occasional dependence on the Lord (15:18-19; 16:28-30). However, his personal life was flawed because of his weakness for Philistine women (chs 14, 16). Having been seduced by Delilah, he was imprisoned at Gaza. He died in the collapse of Dagon’s temple, praying that the Lord would permit him to get revenge (16:28-30). He was buried in his father’s tomb in the territory of Dan (16:31).<\/p>\n<h5>Epilogue (17–21)<\/h5>\n<p>The cyclical nature of Israel’s existence was without movement. Rest from enemies was always temporary. Israel was not yet ready for dynastic kingship, and whatever one may say of the three years of Abimelech, it was a kingship of the worst sort. Israel vacillated between idolatry and belief in the true Lord. The period of the judges was unstable, marked by petty individualism and provincialism. Yet God remained sovereign in the affairs of his people. The epilogue contains two stories: the story of Micah and the Danite migration (chs 17–18) and the civil war (chs 19–21). The epilogue is bound together by the phrase “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, <span>niv<\/span>). The symmetric recurrence (two times in each narrative) emphasizes the anarchy and inability of the tribes to unite together to serve God as a covenant people.<\/p>\n<h6>Micah and the Danites (17–18)<\/h6>\n<p>Micah was an Ephraimite who established a shrine and hired one of his own sons, and then a Levite from Bethlehem, to serve as its priests (ch 17). Unable to keep their patrimony, the Danites left to establish themselves at the foot of Mt Hermon. They took the idols and the Levite from Micah’s shrine and set up a cultic city at the newly established city of Dan, built on the ruins of Laish (ch 18). Thus, they set up a cultic center that rivaled the tabernacle at Shiloh (18:31).<\/p>\n<h6>The Civil War (19–21)<\/h6>\n<p>The people of Gibeah, which belonged to Benjamin, sexually abused the concubine of a Levite so that she died. Like the Levite of chapters 17 and 18, she was from Bethlehem (19:1). Dramatically, the Levite sent pieces of her corpse to all the tribes, which assembled against the Benjamites because they protected the criminals of Gibeah (19:29–20:19). In the ensuing battle the population of Benjamin was decimated (20:20-48). The 11 tribes gave them 400 virgins taken in a civil war against Jabesh-gilead (21:6-15). These were not enough, however. Because of the threat of the extinction of Benjamin and the vow not to give their daughters in marriage to any Benjamite, the Israelites devised a plan by which the Benjamites could take Israelite virgins dancing in the festival at Shiloh. Benjamin thus was able to rebuild its towns and settlements.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gideon; Jephthah; Samson.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","summary_en":"JUDGES, Book of Old Testament book named after the prominent leaders raised up by the Lord to deliver his people. The word “judge” in Hebrew also denotes the activity of governance, including warfare. Some scholars have argued that there were two kinds of judges: charismatic deliverers (or major judges) and local judicial sages (minor judges). It is uncertain why some judges receive cursory attention, whereas the exploits of other judges are given in great detail. Preview • Author • Date • Li...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45804,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:8","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","summary_en":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73430,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:8","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","summary_en":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101056,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:8","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","summary_en":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128682,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:8","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:8-13<\/strong> Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To <em>wave back and forth over the trees<\/em> implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","summary_en":"9:8-13 Olives, figs, and grapes were fundamental to the agriculture of Canaan, yielding important produce and adding to the beauty of the landscape. • To wave back and forth over the trees implied being visible and active while accomplishing nothing.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":12563,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Food and Food Preparation","title_en":"Food and Food Preparation","content_ro":"<h3>FOOD AND FOOD PREPARATION<\/h3>\n<p>Substances required by the body to sustain life, and the methods of making them edible. Food consumed in Bible times included bread, milk products, fruit, meat, and fish. Food was also offered sacrificially or given as gifts. The availability of food was a perpetual concern because of the recurrent scarcity: droughts were frequent (2 Kgs 4:38; Jer 14:1, 4-6; Hg 1:11), hailstorms wrought devastation among crops (Hg 2:17), farming was frequently interrupted by warfare with neighboring nations (2 Kgs 6:25), and intermittent plagues of locusts ravaged large areas.<\/p>\n<p>Food was more plentiful in Palestine (described as a “land flowing with milk and honey”) than in many other parts of the Near East. Shallow cultivation of the soil, however, made crops highly reliant on regular rainfall. Egyptian crops were far less susceptible to weather variations, because the Nile provided a dependable source of water.<\/p>\n<p>Food shortages were considered warnings or punishment from God (Lam 4:9, 11; Am 4:6-9) to teach the Hebrews that life is more than food and that faith must continue despite scarcity, famine, or even death (Dt 8:3; Hb 3:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>The staples of nomadic Hebrews were milk, curds, and cheese. As the people became more stationary, they grew grains and vegetables and planted orchards and vineyards. Grain would sometimes be grown for a season, and then after the harvest, the tribes would move their flocks to other pastures and find other arable land. Religious sacrifices and festivals were times not only of solemnity but also of rejoicing and great feasting. Victories were also celebrated with banquets and feasting on the food obtained from the camp of the vanquished enemy.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Dairy Products<\/p>\n<p>• Grain Crops<\/p>\n<p>• Animal Products<\/p>\n<p>• Insects and Their Food Products<\/p>\n<p>• Vegetables and Seasoning<\/p>\n<p>• Fruits, Nuts, and Wine<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DairyProducts\">Dairy Products<\/p>\n<p>Milk and its by-products formed a vital part of the Hebrew diet (see Jgs 4:19). Goat’s milk was most frequently used, although milk from camels, cows, and sheep was also available (Gn 32:15; Dt 32:14; Prv 27:27).<\/p>\n<p>Since fresh milk could not be preserved in Palestine’s hot climate, it was processed into buttermilk, curds, and cheese. Milk was poured into goatskins, where it soured and thickened because of the nonsterile condition of the previously used skins and the movement as it was transported. That movement of the pouch (often made from a cow’s stomach, containing the enzyme rennin used in cheese making) produced curds. Curds are first mentioned in the Bible as part of the meal that Abraham provided for his extraordinary guests (Gn 18:8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for curds <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">chena<\/span><em>)<\/em> is also translated “butter” (Jb 10:10). This butter would be similar in consistency to yogurt from which the water has been squeezed out. When pressed and rolled into small balls, it kept indefinitely, despite the climate. Thus, compressed curds were particularly valuable for journeys in arid regions where food was scarce.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GrainCrops\">Grain Crops<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently mentioned food in the Bible is bread. The term refers in a general sense to all foods but more particularly to food prepared from grain. In biblical times bread was prepared from several grains. Wheat, barley, and spelt were grown in Egypt (Ex 9:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>An Egyptian physician named Sinuhe, living in the mid-20th century <span>BC<\/span>, recorded that bread was baked daily in Palestine and Syria, and it is probable that it was served with every meal. This bread was probably a wafer or flat cake made from barley or emmer (an inferior form of wheat), since these were the two grain crops that Sinuhe mentioned seeing. Wheat was the most expensive grain. Fine wheat flour was a luxury only the rich could afford (Gn 18:6; Ez 16:13, 19). In later periods wheat became a valuable export crop that was shipped from Tyre to other ports in the Mediterranean.<\/p>\n<p>Because barley could grow in less productive soil and was more tolerant of drought conditions, it became a popular grain crop in the ancient Near East. Barley could also be harvested several weeks earlier than wheat. Barley bread (Jgs 7:13; 2 Kgs 4:42) and barley cakes (Ez 4:12) were eaten by the average laborer. Jesus miraculously multiplied a young boy’s five barley loaves and two fishes and fed five thousand (Jn 6:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Millet, a cereal with a small grain head growing on a stalk less than two feet (.6 meter) high, and spelt, a type of wheat, were also used in times of need as a border around the edges of fields.<\/p>\n<p>The most primitive way of processing grain was to rub the ears between the hands to separate the kernels, as Jesus and his disciples did (Lk 6:1). To perform this act on the Sabbath (the day of rest) was considered the equivalent of reaping and was therefore forbidden.<\/p>\n<p>Parching (roasting the grain lightly in a pan) was another simple method of preparation (Jos 5:11; 1 Sm 17:17). It formed a quick and easy meal for laborers or kings (Ru 2:14; 1 Sm 25:18; 2 Sm 17:28). Parched corn was ideal for taking on journeys.<\/p>\n<p>Bread making was a strenuous task. Mortars, pestles, and simple mills with upper and lower stones were used for grinding flour in ancient Egypt around 2900 <span>BC<\/span>. These primitive mills were normally placed on the ground, and one was compelled to kneel in order to do the backbreaking work. The resulting meal was coarse and filled with small pieces of husk.<\/p>\n<p>When the flour had been prepared, water was added and the mixture was kneaded in a special trough. The dough could then be made immediately into cakes, pancakes, or unleavened bread (Gn 19:3). These flat cakes or wafers were often baked on previously heated stones, on the inner walls of small conical ovens, or in larger communal ovens. Leaven was added to make a lighter dough. The leaven was normally a piece of dough left over from an earlier mixing and allowed to ferment before being used. The flour meal was also mixed with a porridge made of lentil beans in order to stretch the food supply.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AnimalProducts\">Animal Products<\/p>\n<p>The introduction of meat as part of the diet seems to have coincided with the time when Noah and his family left the ark (Gn 9:3). After this time, however, the animals normally eaten for food were so valuable that only the wealthy could afford to slaughter them. So in biblical times the peasant had a simple, somewhat monotonous diet, while the rich feasted on meat, delicacies, and imported commodities. As a result, meat was a luxury item that the poor would rarely enjoy except on such occasions as the Passover celebration or sacrifices in which the worshiper ate part of the offering (Ex 12:8). Although it was clearly uneconomic to slaughter an animal that produced such staples as milk, curds, and cheese, the rules of hospitality in the Near East dictated that an animal should be killed to entertain an honored guest (2 Sm 12:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>Domestic sheep, goats, and oxen provided the main source of meat, although venison was popular with the upper classes. When the blind Isaac was deceived by his son Jacob, the father was offered the luxury of both kid’s meat and wild game (Gn 27:3, 9, 19). The ox kept in a stall or the fatted calf were reserved for occasions of great festivity (Mt 22:4).<\/p>\n<p>The use of meat for sacrifice was given definitive form in the provisions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Law forbade anyone to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day (Lv 22:28). Another prohibition, perhaps directed at pagan Canaanite sacrificial rituals, would not allow a kid to be stewed or poached in its mother’s milk (Dt 14:21). Mosaic law was emphatic in prohibiting the consumption of blood in any form. Animal blood was considered the source of the animal’s life and was offered by priests as a sacrifice to God to atone for human sin (Lv 17:11). In the Mosaic law, pigs, camels, badgers, and rabbits were considered unclean and were therefore forbidden for food, principally on hygienic grounds (11:4-8).<\/p>\n<p>In the ancient world, meat was usually boiled or stewed. Roasting an ox or a kid would usually occur only as part of a special feast or sacrificial ritual. Animals might also be roasted for members of the royal palace or for a king’s special guests.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the fact that hunting was enjoyed by all who were able to participate, wild game provided only a minor part of the diet. Among the game found in Palestine and mentioned in the Bible are gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, and deer (Dt 14:5; 1 Kgs 4:23). It is probable that pheasants were available, and there were certainly turtledoves, pigeons, quails, and partridges, although the precise quantities of food that these birds provided is not certain (Gn 15:9; Ex 16:13). Goose was the most popular dish in Egypt, and marsh ducks were also highly esteemed as game. After the Persian period, chickens were eaten (2 Esd 1:30), and eggs and omelettes were popular in Rome in early Christian times. The eggs mentioned in Deuteronomy are probably wild birds’ eggs (Dt 22:6-7; cf. Is 10:14).<\/p>\n<p>Thirty varieties of fish were available in the Jordan, and an extensive fishing industry existed on the shores of the Sea of Galilee at the time of Christ. Supplies of fish were readily available from the Mediterranean coast during the Roman period, but at an earlier time the fish supply depended to a large extent upon whichever nation had control of the coastline. In the postexilic period the people of Tyre supplied the city of Jerusalem with fish, which were sold near the Fish Gate (Neh 3:3). In the regulations concerning the types of fish suitable for food, only those that had fins and scales were acceptable (Lv 11:9-12).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times many of the distinctions concerning food were eliminated. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus, challenging the Pharisees’ hypocrisy, upset the Jewish food laws by saying that evil thoughts, not certain foods, make a person unclean (Mk 7:19). As Christianity spread into gentile areas, there was, however, a continuing concern about eating meat that had been offered to idols. The question came to a head in Corinth. The apostle Paul maintained that though the meat was acceptable, one should take care not to cause spiritual damage to another Christian with a more sensitive conscience.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InsectsandTheirFoodProducts\">Insects and Their Food Products<\/p>\n<p>Wild honey was found in Palestine, but there is no evidence of bee-keeping. Egyptians, however, did practice beekeeping at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The honeycomb is mentioned specifically in 1 Samuel 14:27 and Song of Songs 5:1; liquid honey is referred to in 1 Kings 14:3. Honey was to be found in crevices of rocks and on trees (Dt 32:13). It was the primary sweetener in cooking. Although it could not be used in a sacrifice to the Lord (Lv 2:11), honey was prized as a delicacy. In the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>, when Thutmose III was campaigning in Syria and Palestine, he brought back vast quantities of honey as tribute from his newly conquered lands.<\/p>\n<p>Locusts were probably first eaten in desperation after they had devastated crops. They are one of the few insects mentioned as a permissible source of food (Lv 11:22). Locusts were fried in flour or honey, or were preserved by being dried. Locusts and wild honey formed John the Baptist’s basic diet in the wilderness (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6). Although locusts contain little protein, they are rich in fat and have some mineral content.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"VegetablesandSeasoning\">Vegetables and Seasoning<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew people wandering in the Sinai wilderness bemoaned the loss of the flavorful vegetables they had become accustomed to during their Egyptian captivity. In particular, they expressed a longing for cucumbers, melons (possibly watermelons), leeks, onions, and garlic (Nm 11:5). Many of these vegetables were later grown in Palestine (particularly in the Gaza). When cucumbers were first cultivated, they were regarded as luxury items and had to be protected by guards who lived in shacks overlooking the gardens (Is 1:8). Beans, lentils, and parched grain were among the items brought to David and his soldiers at Mahanaim (2 Sm 17:28). Lentils were known in Egypt from at least the 13th century <span>BC<\/span> and were used extensively both then and in later times by the Israelites. Lentil soup is mentioned in Genesis 25:34.<\/p>\n<p>In times of hunger the husks of the carob tree, normally fed to cattle, could be used for food. These would have been most acceptable to the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). There were many kinds of green herbs that could provide a meal for the poor in time of need (Prv 15:17). In cases of extreme hunger, some kinds of mallow and juniper roots could also be used as food. In Elisha’s time a group of prophets at Gilgal prepared a stew of wild vegetables, to which they mistakenly added poisonous wild gourds. Elisha rectified the situation by adding meal to the pot (2 Kgs 4:38-41). While there is no actual record of the kinds of bitter herbs used as part of the Passover offering (Ex 12:8; Nm 9:11), mint and cummin were most probably included. Dill, cummin, rue, and mint were common garden herbs (Mt 23:23; Lk 11:42).<\/p>\n<p>Seasonings were welcome additives to the rather bland character of typical Israelite fare. Salt came mainly from the Dead Sea area and was essential as a seasoning and preserving agent. Salt was so important in the diet that it became part of the vocabulary of moral obligation. The sharing of salt with a person at a meal sealed a covenant or pact (Nm 18:19). In the Levitical sacrificial ritual, salt was part of meat and cereal offerings, since it signified the sealing of God’s covenant with Israel (Lv 2:13; Ez 43:24).<\/p>\n<p>The mustard tree, which was probably grown for its oil content, grew from a minute seed to the height of 15 feet (4.5 meters) (Mt 13:31-32). Anise, coriander, and cinnamon were also available (Ex 16:31; Nm 11:7). Perhaps the most popular and widely used spice, apart from salt, was garlic. Vinegar was also probably used as a flavoring agent and a preservative. From the number of seeds and plants found in Egyptian tombs from the 18th dynasty, it is obvious that the use of seasoning was widespread in antiquity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FruitsNutsandWine\">Fruits, Nuts, and Wine<\/p>\n<p>Olive trees grew abundantly in Palestine and were an excellent source of food and oil. Even in poor soil, one tree could sufficiently supply a family for a whole year. Some green olives were pickled in brine and eaten with bread, but the olive was most important as a source of oil. Olive oil was used in baking bread and cakes and in frying foods. The best quality olive oil was used in the temple sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>Oil was extracted from olives by a simple process: for the finest quality oil, olives were picked before fully ripe and then crushed by hand with a stone mortar and pestle. Usually, however, pickers beat the olives from trees with long poles and collected them in baskets. The oil was then trodden out, probably in the same vat used for grapes (Mi 6:15), which were harvested approximately four weeks later.<\/p>\n<p>An oil mill was developed subsequently, and the heavy upper grinding stone was turned by two people. As the oil dripped through, it was collected in another stone vat and was allowed to settle and purify. When refined, the oil was stored in skins or jars.<\/p>\n<p>Fig trees grew in all areas of Palestine. They required little attention and provided two or three crops per year. The most abundant of these was the second, which ripened in late summer. The first figs of the season were considered a great delicacy (Is 28:4; Mi 7:1). The prophet Hosea suggested that the Israelites were like the firstfruits of the fig tree (Hos 9:10). Another prophet, Jeremiah, spoke of those who had gone into exile as being like the first figs, while those who were left behind were the bad figs, fit only for destruction (Jer 24:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Figs were usually eaten fresh from the trees, but some were pressed into cakes to use when traveling (1 Sm 25:18; 30:12; 1 Chr 12:40). Figs were also valuable for medicinal purposes, since effective poultices could be made from them (2 Kgs 20:7; Is 38:21). Sycamore trees produced small, figlike fruit eaten primarily by the poor. A short time before harvest, the fruit was slightly incised, making it swell and ripen more quickly. The prophet Amos notched sycamore fruit before he was called by God (Am 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Fruit from the date palm could also have been pressed into flat cakes for travelers, as figs were. The Bible, however, makes no specific reference to its fruit as food (see Jgs 4:5; Ps 92:12; Jl 1:12; Jn 12:13).<\/p>\n<p>Another popular Near Eastern fruit was the red pomegranate. It was eaten whole, or the seeds were pressed to provide a refreshing drink. The pomegranate is mentioned in temple ritual as one of the fruits brought back from Canaan to Moses by his spies (Ex 28:33) and as an exotic drink (Sg 8:2). The “apple” mentioned in Scripture (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:5) was most likely a type of apricot or quince, not an apple as we know it today. Nuts were used for additional flavor in cooking. Almonds and pistachio nuts were among the gifts sent by Jacob to ransom his sons (Gn 43:11).<\/p>\n<p>Grapes were popular and plentiful from the early Bronze Age. In addition to being eaten fresh from the vine, grapes were dried as raisins (Nm 6:3; 1 Sm 25:18) or pressed, their juice drunk either as new wine or fermented into an alcoholic drink. One of the duties of the cup-bearer in ancient royal courts was to provide grape juice or wine for the king, his family, and guests (Gn 40:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>The juice of grapes also provided vinegar when wine deteriorated. Vinegar was used as a flavoring agent in cooking and as a preservative. When diluted with water, it supplied a refreshing drink for workers in the fields. A type of jelly was made in the Near East by boiling grapes until they assumed the consistency of molasses. This syrup could also be used as a sweetening agent in cooking.<\/p>\n<p>Wine was the universal drink in antiquity. It could be diluted with water or mixed with spices or honey to make a mulled wine (Sg 8:2; Is 5:22). The Hebrew word for “banquet” or “feast” literally means “drinking,” which reveals much of the character of such occasions. A certain amount of merriment was considered proper at a festival or banquet (Gn 43:34; Jgs 9:13; Lk 5:34).<\/p>\n<p>Wine making was similar in many respects to the production of olive oil. Clusters of grapes were cut from the vine with a sickle, collected in baskets, and taken to the winepress, where they were trodden by men and women. The juice ran into a lower vat, where, under the hot sun, fermentation began almost immediately. The wine was left to settle so that any twigs or skins would form a sediment; after that the wine could be strained off. In about six weeks the wine was ready to drink or store in earthenware jars or wineskins.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Animals; Bread; Family Life and Relations; Leaven; Meals, Significance of; Plants; Unleavened Bread.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>FOOD AND FOOD PREPARATION<\/h3>\n<p>Substances required by the body to sustain life, and the methods of making them edible. Food consumed in Bible times included bread, milk products, fruit, meat, and fish. Food was also offered sacrificially or given as gifts. The availability of food was a perpetual concern because of the recurrent scarcity: droughts were frequent (2 Kgs 4:38; Jer 14:1, 4-6; Hg 1:11), hailstorms wrought devastation among crops (Hg 2:17), farming was frequently interrupted by warfare with neighboring nations (2 Kgs 6:25), and intermittent plagues of locusts ravaged large areas.<\/p>\n<p>Food was more plentiful in Palestine (described as a “land flowing with milk and honey”) than in many other parts of the Near East. Shallow cultivation of the soil, however, made crops highly reliant on regular rainfall. Egyptian crops were far less susceptible to weather variations, because the Nile provided a dependable source of water.<\/p>\n<p>Food shortages were considered warnings or punishment from God (Lam 4:9, 11; Am 4:6-9) to teach the Hebrews that life is more than food and that faith must continue despite scarcity, famine, or even death (Dt 8:3; Hb 3:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>The staples of nomadic Hebrews were milk, curds, and cheese. As the people became more stationary, they grew grains and vegetables and planted orchards and vineyards. Grain would sometimes be grown for a season, and then after the harvest, the tribes would move their flocks to other pastures and find other arable land. Religious sacrifices and festivals were times not only of solemnity but also of rejoicing and great feasting. Victories were also celebrated with banquets and feasting on the food obtained from the camp of the vanquished enemy.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Dairy Products<\/p>\n<p>• Grain Crops<\/p>\n<p>• Animal Products<\/p>\n<p>• Insects and Their Food Products<\/p>\n<p>• Vegetables and Seasoning<\/p>\n<p>• Fruits, Nuts, and Wine<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DairyProducts\">Dairy Products<\/p>\n<p>Milk and its by-products formed a vital part of the Hebrew diet (see Jgs 4:19). Goat’s milk was most frequently used, although milk from camels, cows, and sheep was also available (Gn 32:15; Dt 32:14; Prv 27:27).<\/p>\n<p>Since fresh milk could not be preserved in Palestine’s hot climate, it was processed into buttermilk, curds, and cheese. Milk was poured into goatskins, where it soured and thickened because of the nonsterile condition of the previously used skins and the movement as it was transported. That movement of the pouch (often made from a cow’s stomach, containing the enzyme rennin used in cheese making) produced curds. Curds are first mentioned in the Bible as part of the meal that Abraham provided for his extraordinary guests (Gn 18:8).<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word for curds <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">chena<\/span><em>)<\/em> is also translated “butter” (Jb 10:10). This butter would be similar in consistency to yogurt from which the water has been squeezed out. When pressed and rolled into small balls, it kept indefinitely, despite the climate. Thus, compressed curds were particularly valuable for journeys in arid regions where food was scarce.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GrainCrops\">Grain Crops<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently mentioned food in the Bible is bread. The term refers in a general sense to all foods but more particularly to food prepared from grain. In biblical times bread was prepared from several grains. Wheat, barley, and spelt were grown in Egypt (Ex 9:31-32).<\/p>\n<p>An Egyptian physician named Sinuhe, living in the mid-20th century <span>BC<\/span>, recorded that bread was baked daily in Palestine and Syria, and it is probable that it was served with every meal. This bread was probably a wafer or flat cake made from barley or emmer (an inferior form of wheat), since these were the two grain crops that Sinuhe mentioned seeing. Wheat was the most expensive grain. Fine wheat flour was a luxury only the rich could afford (Gn 18:6; Ez 16:13, 19). In later periods wheat became a valuable export crop that was shipped from Tyre to other ports in the Mediterranean.<\/p>\n<p>Because barley could grow in less productive soil and was more tolerant of drought conditions, it became a popular grain crop in the ancient Near East. Barley could also be harvested several weeks earlier than wheat. Barley bread (Jgs 7:13; 2 Kgs 4:42) and barley cakes (Ez 4:12) were eaten by the average laborer. Jesus miraculously multiplied a young boy’s five barley loaves and two fishes and fed five thousand (Jn 6:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>Millet, a cereal with a small grain head growing on a stalk less than two feet (.6 meter) high, and spelt, a type of wheat, were also used in times of need as a border around the edges of fields.<\/p>\n<p>The most primitive way of processing grain was to rub the ears between the hands to separate the kernels, as Jesus and his disciples did (Lk 6:1). To perform this act on the Sabbath (the day of rest) was considered the equivalent of reaping and was therefore forbidden.<\/p>\n<p>Parching (roasting the grain lightly in a pan) was another simple method of preparation (Jos 5:11; 1 Sm 17:17). It formed a quick and easy meal for laborers or kings (Ru 2:14; 1 Sm 25:18; 2 Sm 17:28). Parched corn was ideal for taking on journeys.<\/p>\n<p>Bread making was a strenuous task. Mortars, pestles, and simple mills with upper and lower stones were used for grinding flour in ancient Egypt around 2900 <span>BC<\/span>. These primitive mills were normally placed on the ground, and one was compelled to kneel in order to do the backbreaking work. The resulting meal was coarse and filled with small pieces of husk.<\/p>\n<p>When the flour had been prepared, water was added and the mixture was kneaded in a special trough. The dough could then be made immediately into cakes, pancakes, or unleavened bread (Gn 19:3). These flat cakes or wafers were often baked on previously heated stones, on the inner walls of small conical ovens, or in larger communal ovens. Leaven was added to make a lighter dough. The leaven was normally a piece of dough left over from an earlier mixing and allowed to ferment before being used. The flour meal was also mixed with a porridge made of lentil beans in order to stretch the food supply.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AnimalProducts\">Animal Products<\/p>\n<p>The introduction of meat as part of the diet seems to have coincided with the time when Noah and his family left the ark (Gn 9:3). After this time, however, the animals normally eaten for food were so valuable that only the wealthy could afford to slaughter them. So in biblical times the peasant had a simple, somewhat monotonous diet, while the rich feasted on meat, delicacies, and imported commodities. As a result, meat was a luxury item that the poor would rarely enjoy except on such occasions as the Passover celebration or sacrifices in which the worshiper ate part of the offering (Ex 12:8). Although it was clearly uneconomic to slaughter an animal that produced such staples as milk, curds, and cheese, the rules of hospitality in the Near East dictated that an animal should be killed to entertain an honored guest (2 Sm 12:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>Domestic sheep, goats, and oxen provided the main source of meat, although venison was popular with the upper classes. When the blind Isaac was deceived by his son Jacob, the father was offered the luxury of both kid’s meat and wild game (Gn 27:3, 9, 19). The ox kept in a stall or the fatted calf were reserved for occasions of great festivity (Mt 22:4).<\/p>\n<p>The use of meat for sacrifice was given definitive form in the provisions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Law forbade anyone to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day (Lv 22:28). Another prohibition, perhaps directed at pagan Canaanite sacrificial rituals, would not allow a kid to be stewed or poached in its mother’s milk (Dt 14:21). Mosaic law was emphatic in prohibiting the consumption of blood in any form. Animal blood was considered the source of the animal’s life and was offered by priests as a sacrifice to God to atone for human sin (Lv 17:11). In the Mosaic law, pigs, camels, badgers, and rabbits were considered unclean and were therefore forbidden for food, principally on hygienic grounds (11:4-8).<\/p>\n<p>In the ancient world, meat was usually boiled or stewed. Roasting an ox or a kid would usually occur only as part of a special feast or sacrificial ritual. Animals might also be roasted for members of the royal palace or for a king’s special guests.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the fact that hunting was enjoyed by all who were able to participate, wild game provided only a minor part of the diet. Among the game found in Palestine and mentioned in the Bible are gazelle, roebuck, wild goat, and deer (Dt 14:5; 1 Kgs 4:23). It is probable that pheasants were available, and there were certainly turtledoves, pigeons, quails, and partridges, although the precise quantities of food that these birds provided is not certain (Gn 15:9; Ex 16:13). Goose was the most popular dish in Egypt, and marsh ducks were also highly esteemed as game. After the Persian period, chickens were eaten (2 Esd 1:30), and eggs and omelettes were popular in Rome in early Christian times. The eggs mentioned in Deuteronomy are probably wild birds’ eggs (Dt 22:6-7; cf. Is 10:14).<\/p>\n<p>Thirty varieties of fish were available in the Jordan, and an extensive fishing industry existed on the shores of the Sea of Galilee at the time of Christ. Supplies of fish were readily available from the Mediterranean coast during the Roman period, but at an earlier time the fish supply depended to a large extent upon whichever nation had control of the coastline. In the postexilic period the people of Tyre supplied the city of Jerusalem with fish, which were sold near the Fish Gate (Neh 3:3). In the regulations concerning the types of fish suitable for food, only those that had fins and scales were acceptable (Lv 11:9-12).<\/p>\n<p>In NT times many of the distinctions concerning food were eliminated. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus, challenging the Pharisees’ hypocrisy, upset the Jewish food laws by saying that evil thoughts, not certain foods, make a person unclean (Mk 7:19). As Christianity spread into gentile areas, there was, however, a continuing concern about eating meat that had been offered to idols. The question came to a head in Corinth. The apostle Paul maintained that though the meat was acceptable, one should take care not to cause spiritual damage to another Christian with a more sensitive conscience.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"InsectsandTheirFoodProducts\">Insects and Their Food Products<\/p>\n<p>Wild honey was found in Palestine, but there is no evidence of bee-keeping. Egyptians, however, did practice beekeeping at that time.<\/p>\n<p>The honeycomb is mentioned specifically in 1 Samuel 14:27 and Song of Songs 5:1; liquid honey is referred to in 1 Kings 14:3. Honey was to be found in crevices of rocks and on trees (Dt 32:13). It was the primary sweetener in cooking. Although it could not be used in a sacrifice to the Lord (Lv 2:11), honey was prized as a delicacy. In the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>, when Thutmose III was campaigning in Syria and Palestine, he brought back vast quantities of honey as tribute from his newly conquered lands.<\/p>\n<p>Locusts were probably first eaten in desperation after they had devastated crops. They are one of the few insects mentioned as a permissible source of food (Lv 11:22). Locusts were fried in flour or honey, or were preserved by being dried. Locusts and wild honey formed John the Baptist’s basic diet in the wilderness (Mt 3:4; Mk 1:6). Although locusts contain little protein, they are rich in fat and have some mineral content.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"VegetablesandSeasoning\">Vegetables and Seasoning<\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew people wandering in the Sinai wilderness bemoaned the loss of the flavorful vegetables they had become accustomed to during their Egyptian captivity. In particular, they expressed a longing for cucumbers, melons (possibly watermelons), leeks, onions, and garlic (Nm 11:5). Many of these vegetables were later grown in Palestine (particularly in the Gaza). When cucumbers were first cultivated, they were regarded as luxury items and had to be protected by guards who lived in shacks overlooking the gardens (Is 1:8). Beans, lentils, and parched grain were among the items brought to David and his soldiers at Mahanaim (2 Sm 17:28). Lentils were known in Egypt from at least the 13th century <span>BC<\/span> and were used extensively both then and in later times by the Israelites. Lentil soup is mentioned in Genesis 25:34.<\/p>\n<p>In times of hunger the husks of the carob tree, normally fed to cattle, could be used for food. These would have been most acceptable to the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). There were many kinds of green herbs that could provide a meal for the poor in time of need (Prv 15:17). In cases of extreme hunger, some kinds of mallow and juniper roots could also be used as food. In Elisha’s time a group of prophets at Gilgal prepared a stew of wild vegetables, to which they mistakenly added poisonous wild gourds. Elisha rectified the situation by adding meal to the pot (2 Kgs 4:38-41). While there is no actual record of the kinds of bitter herbs used as part of the Passover offering (Ex 12:8; Nm 9:11), mint and cummin were most probably included. Dill, cummin, rue, and mint were common garden herbs (Mt 23:23; Lk 11:42).<\/p>\n<p>Seasonings were welcome additives to the rather bland character of typical Israelite fare. Salt came mainly from the Dead Sea area and was essential as a seasoning and preserving agent. Salt was so important in the diet that it became part of the vocabulary of moral obligation. The sharing of salt with a person at a meal sealed a covenant or pact (Nm 18:19). In the Levitical sacrificial ritual, salt was part of meat and cereal offerings, since it signified the sealing of God’s covenant with Israel (Lv 2:13; Ez 43:24).<\/p>\n<p>The mustard tree, which was probably grown for its oil content, grew from a minute seed to the height of 15 feet (4.5 meters) (Mt 13:31-32). Anise, coriander, and cinnamon were also available (Ex 16:31; Nm 11:7). Perhaps the most popular and widely used spice, apart from salt, was garlic. Vinegar was also probably used as a flavoring agent and a preservative. From the number of seeds and plants found in Egyptian tombs from the 18th dynasty, it is obvious that the use of seasoning was widespread in antiquity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FruitsNutsandWine\">Fruits, Nuts, and Wine<\/p>\n<p>Olive trees grew abundantly in Palestine and were an excellent source of food and oil. Even in poor soil, one tree could sufficiently supply a family for a whole year. Some green olives were pickled in brine and eaten with bread, but the olive was most important as a source of oil. Olive oil was used in baking bread and cakes and in frying foods. The best quality olive oil was used in the temple sacrifices.<\/p>\n<p>Oil was extracted from olives by a simple process: for the finest quality oil, olives were picked before fully ripe and then crushed by hand with a stone mortar and pestle. Usually, however, pickers beat the olives from trees with long poles and collected them in baskets. The oil was then trodden out, probably in the same vat used for grapes (Mi 6:15), which were harvested approximately four weeks later.<\/p>\n<p>An oil mill was developed subsequently, and the heavy upper grinding stone was turned by two people. As the oil dripped through, it was collected in another stone vat and was allowed to settle and purify. When refined, the oil was stored in skins or jars.<\/p>\n<p>Fig trees grew in all areas of Palestine. They required little attention and provided two or three crops per year. The most abundant of these was the second, which ripened in late summer. The first figs of the season were considered a great delicacy (Is 28:4; Mi 7:1). The prophet Hosea suggested that the Israelites were like the firstfruits of the fig tree (Hos 9:10). Another prophet, Jeremiah, spoke of those who had gone into exile as being like the first figs, while those who were left behind were the bad figs, fit only for destruction (Jer 24:1-10).<\/p>\n<p>Figs were usually eaten fresh from the trees, but some were pressed into cakes to use when traveling (1 Sm 25:18; 30:12; 1 Chr 12:40). Figs were also valuable for medicinal purposes, since effective poultices could be made from them (2 Kgs 20:7; Is 38:21). Sycamore trees produced small, figlike fruit eaten primarily by the poor. A short time before harvest, the fruit was slightly incised, making it swell and ripen more quickly. The prophet Amos notched sycamore fruit before he was called by God (Am 7:14).<\/p>\n<p>Fruit from the date palm could also have been pressed into flat cakes for travelers, as figs were. The Bible, however, makes no specific reference to its fruit as food (see Jgs 4:5; Ps 92:12; Jl 1:12; Jn 12:13).<\/p>\n<p>Another popular Near Eastern fruit was the red pomegranate. It was eaten whole, or the seeds were pressed to provide a refreshing drink. The pomegranate is mentioned in temple ritual as one of the fruits brought back from Canaan to Moses by his spies (Ex 28:33) and as an exotic drink (Sg 8:2). The “apple” mentioned in Scripture (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:5) was most likely a type of apricot or quince, not an apple as we know it today. Nuts were used for additional flavor in cooking. Almonds and pistachio nuts were among the gifts sent by Jacob to ransom his sons (Gn 43:11).<\/p>\n<p>Grapes were popular and plentiful from the early Bronze Age. In addition to being eaten fresh from the vine, grapes were dried as raisins (Nm 6:3; 1 Sm 25:18) or pressed, their juice drunk either as new wine or fermented into an alcoholic drink. One of the duties of the cup-bearer in ancient royal courts was to provide grape juice or wine for the king, his family, and guests (Gn 40:9-13).<\/p>\n<p>The juice of grapes also provided vinegar when wine deteriorated. Vinegar was used as a flavoring agent in cooking and as a preservative. When diluted with water, it supplied a refreshing drink for workers in the fields. A type of jelly was made in the Near East by boiling grapes until they assumed the consistency of molasses. This syrup could also be used as a sweetening agent in cooking.<\/p>\n<p>Wine was the universal drink in antiquity. It could be diluted with water or mixed with spices or honey to make a mulled wine (Sg 8:2; Is 5:22). The Hebrew word for “banquet” or “feast” literally means “drinking,” which reveals much of the character of such occasions. A certain amount of merriment was considered proper at a festival or banquet (Gn 43:34; Jgs 9:13; Lk 5:34).<\/p>\n<p>Wine making was similar in many respects to the production of olive oil. Clusters of grapes were cut from the vine with a sickle, collected in baskets, and taken to the winepress, where they were trodden by men and women. The juice ran into a lower vat, where, under the hot sun, fermentation began almost immediately. The wine was left to settle so that any twigs or skins would form a sediment; after that the wine could be strained off. In about six weeks the wine was ready to drink or store in earthenware jars or wineskins.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Animals; Bread; Family Life and Relations; Leaven; Meals, Significance of; Plants; Unleavened Bread.<\/p>","summary_ro":"FOOD AND FOOD PREPARATION Substances required by the body to sustain life, and the methods of making them edible. Food consumed in Bible times included bread, milk products, fruit, meat, and fish. Food was also offered sacrificially or given as gifts. The availability of food was a perpetual concern because of the recurrent scarcity: droughts were frequent (2 Kgs 4:38; Jer 14:1, 4-6; Hg 1:11), hailstorms wrought devastation among crops (Hg 2:17), farming was frequently interrupted by warfare ...","summary_en":"FOOD AND FOOD PREPARATION Substances required by the body to sustain life, and the methods of making them edible. Food consumed in Bible times included bread, milk products, fruit, meat, and fish. Food was also offered sacrificially or given as gifts. The availability of food was a perpetual concern because of the recurrent scarcity: droughts were frequent (2 Kgs 4:38; Jer 14:1, 4-6; Hg 1:11), hailstorms wrought devastation among crops (Hg 2:17), farming was frequently interrupted by warfare ...","source":"Articles\/F.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38428,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Wine","title_en":"Wine","content_ro":"<h3>WINE<\/h3>\n<p>Beverage made from fermented grape juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Origin\">Origin<\/p>\n<p>Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth the wine, was often identified in the Near Eastern world with the “tree of life.” In both Egypt and Mesopotamia a goddess was thought to protect the vine. The “mistress of the heavenly tree of life,” the goddess Siris, lived in the mountains of northwestern Assyria. First Enoch 32:4 calls the vine the tree of knowledge. According to Jewish tradition, the vine was saved from the Flood by Noah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProductionofWine\">Production of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few ancient documents are extant on the art of wine making. Experience and the interests of a few early botanists appear to be the only source of knowledge available about the early vine growers. Aristotle’s gifted student Theophrastus of Eresos wrote a book entitled <em>Enquiry into Plants<\/em> showing a blend of practical experience and theory. Later, he followed with <em>On the Life of Plants,<\/em> a work giving detailed observations about wine making. His ideas on when to plant, how to prune, statements against grafting, and how to care for the vine demonstrate the Greek genius. They raised viticulture to a science that has changed little in the last 2200 years.<\/p>\n<p>Great care was taken by Greek vine growers to ensure the success of their crops. The vines were close to the ground instead of being propped. In view of this, mice and foxes were especially undesirable, and much hoeing was needed to keep the soil free of weeds. But their method, overall, was very effective.<\/p>\n<p>In early September the grapes were collected in the plains, and at the end of the month in the hills. With an initial festival of song and dance, the workers brought the bunches of grapes to the winepresses, low cement vats inclined toward one corner. After this, workers trod the grapes. The first <em>must<\/em> (juice from the crushing) was highly valued because it provided the choicest wines. The remaining juice was extracted by wringing the trodden grapes in a bag press usually made of cloth. A third class of wine was produced by mixing or even cooking the remaining grapes with some water and expressing the mixture. This type of wine was drunk only by the poor.<\/p>\n<p>At a later time the Greeks invented a beam press in which a long beam, having a turning portion at one end and heavy stones on the other, compressed layers of grapes. The ancient Near East had these different methods of extracting wine, but the treading of grapes, even in Greece, was always the favorite method.<\/p>\n<p>In Greece the fermentation period was usually six months, during which the liquid was constantly skimmed. However, in the ancient Near East the fermentation process was usually over in three or four days, the optimum growth temperature being 77 degrees. The ancients knew that any further fermentation would produce acid.<\/p>\n<p>After desired fermentation, the wine was transferred to skins or pottery jars for transport or sale. The handles and stoppers were stamped to indicate the brand, the origin, and the vintage. At this time the wine was strained through perforated metal sieves or cloth to eliminate contaminates such as grit or insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KindsofWine\">Kinds of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Ancient poets discuss many different brands of wine, with Athenaeus mentioning 85 different varieties. Galen cites 60; Pliny mentions 150; and Strabo, 30. Wines are distinguished by different colors (black, red, white, or yellow) and by their taste (dry, harsh, light, or sweet). The biblical account enumerates various kinds of wine, such as the wines of Lebanon and Helbon. Hebron and Samaria were famous for their wine making. The Hebrew language has at least nine different words for wine, and the Greek has four that are mentioned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NatureofWine\">Nature of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few would question that at least some wine of the OT was fermented. Some scholars argue, however, that certain forms of wine in the ancient world were unfermented. They contrast two Hebrew words for wine, concluding that one particular Hebrew word that refers to fresh wine meant only grape juice (Prv 3:10; Hos 9:2; Jl 2:24; Mi 6:15). The inconclusiveness of these arguments may be seen from the following points: (1) the Hebrew word is found in primarily neutral contexts; (2) often that particular word is found in contexts definitely including a fermented beverage (e.g., Gn 27:28; Hos 4:11; Mi 6:15); (3) the Ugaritic parallel to the term in question refers with certainty to a fermented wine; (4) the Septuagint equivalents refer to fermented wine; (5) fermentation in the ancient Near East, unlike Greece, took only about three days; and (6) the Mishnah provides no such evidence of the practice of having unfermented wine. There seems to have been no attempts to preserve wine in an unfermented state; it may have been a near-impossible task. A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.<\/p>\n<p>Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">amphorae<\/span><em>,<\/em> from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl called a <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">krater<\/span><em>.<\/em> In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.<\/p>\n<p>The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, <em>Odyssey<\/em> 10.208).<\/p>\n<p>In the western Mediterranean world, the term “wine” referred to the mixture of wine and water. If one desired to mention wine without water, it was necessary to add the word “unmixed.” For the Greeks, to drink wine unmixed was regarded as barbaric. The evidence, however, seems to indicate that in the OT era wine was used without being mixed with water. The terminology of mixing water and wine is strikingly unattested. Wine diluted with water was symbolic of spiritual adulteration (Is 1:22). By Roman times, this attitude had changed. The Mishnah assumes a ratio of two parts of water to one part wine; however, later Talmudic sources speak of three to one. A natural, nondistilled wine could reach as high as 15 percent alcohol content. If watered down three parts water to one part wine, the alcohol content would be 5 percent and still fairly potent.<\/p>\n<p>Wine was mixed not only with water but also with other ingredients, similar to mixed drinks today. An example of this is seen in the Homeric “Hymn to Demeter,” where the goddess rejects straight wine and desires the drink mixed with meal, water, and a soft mint. Often strong wine was mixed into weak wine, resulting in a stronger drink. This is what is meant by “mixture” in the Bible (Ps 75:8; Is 5:22; Rv 18:6; 19:13-15). At times the fresh wine, high in sugar content, was evaporated, and this concentrated <em>must<\/em> was mixed with wine to obtain a higher alcohol content.<\/p>\n<p>There is no mention of wine being mixed with water to make it safe for drinking, as is commonly accepted. Modern examples of pollution were not common in the ancient world, although this problem appeared occasionally. Examples are myriad concerning the fresh wells, springs, and moving bodies of water in biblical times, and methods were available to purify any impure water.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheOldTestament\">Wine in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The evidence, as seen above, suggests that wine in the OT was not mixed with water and was looked on with favor when taken in moderation. Judges 9:13 presents wine as that “which cheers God and men.” Psalm 104:15 portrays wine similarly: “wine which makes man’s heart glad” (cf. also Est 1:10; Eccl 10:19; Is 55:1-2; Zec 10:7). The temperate use of wine was a normal and accepted part of life (Gn 14:18; Jgs 19:19; 1 Sm 16:20). Levitical priests in service at the temple (Lv 10:8-9), Nazirites (Nm 6:3), and the Recabites (Jer 35:1-6) were forbidden to drink wine.<\/p>\n<p>Wine had many uses in the OT world. The “drink offering” was wine (Ex 29:40; Lv 23:13), and the worshiper regularly brought wine when offering sacrifice (1 Sm 1:24). In addition, a supply of wine was kept in the temple for sacrificial purposes (1 Chr 9:29). At times, wine was used in helping the weak and sick (2 Sm 16:2; Prv 31:6).<\/p>\n<p>The strong drink of the OT seems to be closely related to Mesopotamian date wine. This same date wine, high in sugar content, must have also been high in alcohol content. One Hebrew word is consistently used as strong drink (Lv 10:9; Dt 29:6; 1 Sm 1:15; Prv 20:1; 31:6; Is 29:9). There is an equivalent word to this in Ugaritic, translated “drunk,” which parallels the normal word for wine.<\/p>\n<p>Negative reactions to intemperate wine drinking abound in the OT. Isaiah condemned those who drank wine to excess (Is 28:1-8). Many admonitions of drinking wine in excess are given in the Scriptures (Prv 20:1; 21:17; 23:20-21; 23:32-34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheNewTestament\">Wine in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Wine in the NT was a fermented beverage that was mixed with various amounts of water. It was also mixed with gall (Mt 27:34) and myrrh (Mk 15:23). Evidence strongly suggests that the wine used at the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of water and wine, probably three to one in agreement with the dictates of the Mishnah. The phrase “fruit of the vine” (Mt 26:27-29) is often interpreted to mean fresh grape juice. However, fresh grape juice would be all but impossible to find.<\/p>\n<p>The NT, as the OT, argues forcefully against the unrestrained use of wine. The biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine (Eph 5:18; 1 Pt 4:3). Leaders in the church were to practice moderation in the use of wine (1 Tm 3:3, 8; Ti 1:7); the Greek says that they should “not be addicted to wine.”<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Vines, Vineyard; Winepress.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WINE<\/h3>\n<p>Beverage made from fermented grape juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Origin\">Origin<\/p>\n<p>Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth the wine, was often identified in the Near Eastern world with the “tree of life.” In both Egypt and Mesopotamia a goddess was thought to protect the vine. The “mistress of the heavenly tree of life,” the goddess Siris, lived in the mountains of northwestern Assyria. First Enoch 32:4 calls the vine the tree of knowledge. According to Jewish tradition, the vine was saved from the Flood by Noah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ProductionofWine\">Production of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few ancient documents are extant on the art of wine making. Experience and the interests of a few early botanists appear to be the only source of knowledge available about the early vine growers. Aristotle’s gifted student Theophrastus of Eresos wrote a book entitled <em>Enquiry into Plants<\/em> showing a blend of practical experience and theory. Later, he followed with <em>On the Life of Plants,<\/em> a work giving detailed observations about wine making. His ideas on when to plant, how to prune, statements against grafting, and how to care for the vine demonstrate the Greek genius. They raised viticulture to a science that has changed little in the last 2200 years.<\/p>\n<p>Great care was taken by Greek vine growers to ensure the success of their crops. The vines were close to the ground instead of being propped. In view of this, mice and foxes were especially undesirable, and much hoeing was needed to keep the soil free of weeds. But their method, overall, was very effective.<\/p>\n<p>In early September the grapes were collected in the plains, and at the end of the month in the hills. With an initial festival of song and dance, the workers brought the bunches of grapes to the winepresses, low cement vats inclined toward one corner. After this, workers trod the grapes. The first <em>must<\/em> (juice from the crushing) was highly valued because it provided the choicest wines. The remaining juice was extracted by wringing the trodden grapes in a bag press usually made of cloth. A third class of wine was produced by mixing or even cooking the remaining grapes with some water and expressing the mixture. This type of wine was drunk only by the poor.<\/p>\n<p>At a later time the Greeks invented a beam press in which a long beam, having a turning portion at one end and heavy stones on the other, compressed layers of grapes. The ancient Near East had these different methods of extracting wine, but the treading of grapes, even in Greece, was always the favorite method.<\/p>\n<p>In Greece the fermentation period was usually six months, during which the liquid was constantly skimmed. However, in the ancient Near East the fermentation process was usually over in three or four days, the optimum growth temperature being 77 degrees. The ancients knew that any further fermentation would produce acid.<\/p>\n<p>After desired fermentation, the wine was transferred to skins or pottery jars for transport or sale. The handles and stoppers were stamped to indicate the brand, the origin, and the vintage. At this time the wine was strained through perforated metal sieves or cloth to eliminate contaminates such as grit or insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"KindsofWine\">Kinds of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Ancient poets discuss many different brands of wine, with Athenaeus mentioning 85 different varieties. Galen cites 60; Pliny mentions 150; and Strabo, 30. Wines are distinguished by different colors (black, red, white, or yellow) and by their taste (dry, harsh, light, or sweet). The biblical account enumerates various kinds of wine, such as the wines of Lebanon and Helbon. Hebron and Samaria were famous for their wine making. The Hebrew language has at least nine different words for wine, and the Greek has four that are mentioned in the NT.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NatureofWine\">Nature of Wine<\/p>\n<p>Few would question that at least some wine of the OT was fermented. Some scholars argue, however, that certain forms of wine in the ancient world were unfermented. They contrast two Hebrew words for wine, concluding that one particular Hebrew word that refers to fresh wine meant only grape juice (Prv 3:10; Hos 9:2; Jl 2:24; Mi 6:15). The inconclusiveness of these arguments may be seen from the following points: (1) the Hebrew word is found in primarily neutral contexts; (2) often that particular word is found in contexts definitely including a fermented beverage (e.g., Gn 27:28; Hos 4:11; Mi 6:15); (3) the Ugaritic parallel to the term in question refers with certainty to a fermented wine; (4) the Septuagint equivalents refer to fermented wine; (5) fermentation in the ancient Near East, unlike Greece, took only about three days; and (6) the Mishnah provides no such evidence of the practice of having unfermented wine. There seems to have been no attempts to preserve wine in an unfermented state; it may have been a near-impossible task. A careful examination of all the Hebrew words (as well as their Semitic cognates) and the Greek words for wine demonstrates that the ancients knew little, if anything, about unfermented wine.<\/p>\n<p>Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">amphorae<\/span><em>,<\/em> from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl called a <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">krater<\/span><em>.<\/em> In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.<\/p>\n<p>The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, <em>Odyssey<\/em> 10.208).<\/p>\n<p>In the western Mediterranean world, the term “wine” referred to the mixture of wine and water. If one desired to mention wine without water, it was necessary to add the word “unmixed.” For the Greeks, to drink wine unmixed was regarded as barbaric. The evidence, however, seems to indicate that in the OT era wine was used without being mixed with water. The terminology of mixing water and wine is strikingly unattested. Wine diluted with water was symbolic of spiritual adulteration (Is 1:22). By Roman times, this attitude had changed. The Mishnah assumes a ratio of two parts of water to one part wine; however, later Talmudic sources speak of three to one. A natural, nondistilled wine could reach as high as 15 percent alcohol content. If watered down three parts water to one part wine, the alcohol content would be 5 percent and still fairly potent.<\/p>\n<p>Wine was mixed not only with water but also with other ingredients, similar to mixed drinks today. An example of this is seen in the Homeric “Hymn to Demeter,” where the goddess rejects straight wine and desires the drink mixed with meal, water, and a soft mint. Often strong wine was mixed into weak wine, resulting in a stronger drink. This is what is meant by “mixture” in the Bible (Ps 75:8; Is 5:22; Rv 18:6; 19:13-15). At times the fresh wine, high in sugar content, was evaporated, and this concentrated <em>must<\/em> was mixed with wine to obtain a higher alcohol content.<\/p>\n<p>There is no mention of wine being mixed with water to make it safe for drinking, as is commonly accepted. Modern examples of pollution were not common in the ancient world, although this problem appeared occasionally. Examples are myriad concerning the fresh wells, springs, and moving bodies of water in biblical times, and methods were available to purify any impure water.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheOldTestament\">Wine in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The evidence, as seen above, suggests that wine in the OT was not mixed with water and was looked on with favor when taken in moderation. Judges 9:13 presents wine as that “which cheers God and men.” Psalm 104:15 portrays wine similarly: “wine which makes man’s heart glad” (cf. also Est 1:10; Eccl 10:19; Is 55:1-2; Zec 10:7). The temperate use of wine was a normal and accepted part of life (Gn 14:18; Jgs 19:19; 1 Sm 16:20). Levitical priests in service at the temple (Lv 10:8-9), Nazirites (Nm 6:3), and the Recabites (Jer 35:1-6) were forbidden to drink wine.<\/p>\n<p>Wine had many uses in the OT world. The “drink offering” was wine (Ex 29:40; Lv 23:13), and the worshiper regularly brought wine when offering sacrifice (1 Sm 1:24). In addition, a supply of wine was kept in the temple for sacrificial purposes (1 Chr 9:29). At times, wine was used in helping the weak and sick (2 Sm 16:2; Prv 31:6).<\/p>\n<p>The strong drink of the OT seems to be closely related to Mesopotamian date wine. This same date wine, high in sugar content, must have also been high in alcohol content. One Hebrew word is consistently used as strong drink (Lv 10:9; Dt 29:6; 1 Sm 1:15; Prv 20:1; 31:6; Is 29:9). There is an equivalent word to this in Ugaritic, translated “drunk,” which parallels the normal word for wine.<\/p>\n<p>Negative reactions to intemperate wine drinking abound in the OT. Isaiah condemned those who drank wine to excess (Is 28:1-8). Many admonitions of drinking wine in excess are given in the Scriptures (Prv 20:1; 21:17; 23:20-21; 23:32-34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WineintheNewTestament\">Wine in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>Wine in the NT was a fermented beverage that was mixed with various amounts of water. It was also mixed with gall (Mt 27:34) and myrrh (Mk 15:23). Evidence strongly suggests that the wine used at the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of water and wine, probably three to one in agreement with the dictates of the Mishnah. The phrase “fruit of the vine” (Mt 26:27-29) is often interpreted to mean fresh grape juice. However, fresh grape juice would be all but impossible to find.<\/p>\n<p>The NT, as the OT, argues forcefully against the unrestrained use of wine. The biblical admonition is not to be drunk with wine (Eph 5:18; 1 Pt 4:3). Leaders in the church were to practice moderation in the use of wine (1 Tm 3:3, 8; Ti 1:7); the Greek says that they should “not be addicted to wine.”<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Vines, Vineyard; Winepress.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WINE Beverage made from fermented grape juice. Origin Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 BC. The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth...","summary_en":"WINE Beverage made from fermented grape juice. Origin Noah was among the first to produce wine (Gn 9:21), presumably on the slopes of Mt Ararat. But wine making was not confined to that region, because Egypt, and later Greece, had a fondness for the juice. In fact, wine making was known to have existed in the prehistoric period of Mesopotamia and was brought to Egypt before 3000 BC. The word “wine” may be identified with words for vine, vineyard, and black grapes. The vine, which brings forth...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":30562,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plants","title_en":"Plants","content_ro":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\n<p>Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Acacia<\/p>\n<p>• Acanthus<\/p>\n<p>• Algum<\/p>\n<p>• Almond<\/p>\n<p>• Almug<\/p>\n<p>• Aloe<\/p>\n<p>• Apple<\/p>\n<p>• Apricot<\/p>\n<p>• Ash<\/p>\n<p>• Aspen<\/p>\n<p>• Balm<\/p>\n<p>• Barley<\/p>\n<p>• Bdellium<\/p>\n<p>• Bean<\/p>\n<p>• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n<p>• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n<p>• Box Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Bramble<\/p>\n<p>• Broom<\/p>\n<p>• Buckthorn<\/p>\n<p>• Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Buttercup<\/p>\n<p>• Calamus<\/p>\n<p>• Cane<\/p>\n<p>• Caper Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Carob Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Cassia<\/p>\n<p>• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Cedar<\/p>\n<p>• Chicory<\/p>\n<p>• Cinnamon<\/p>\n<p>• Citron Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Coriander<\/p>\n<p>• Cotton<\/p>\n<p>• Cucumber<\/p>\n<p>• Cummin<\/p>\n<p>• Cypress<\/p>\n<p>• Dandelion<\/p>\n<p>• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n<p>• Dill<\/p>\n<p>• Ebony<\/p>\n<p>• Endive<\/p>\n<p>• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Fir Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Flax<\/p>\n<p>• Frankincense<\/p>\n<p>• Galbanum<\/p>\n<p>• Garlic<\/p>\n<p>• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n<p>• Hedge<\/p>\n<p>• Henna<\/p>\n<p>• Hyacinth<\/p>\n<p>• Hyssop<\/p>\n<p>• Juniper<\/p>\n<p>• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n<p>• Leek<\/p>\n<p>• Lentil<\/p>\n<p>• Lettuce<\/p>\n<p>• Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Mallow<\/p>\n<p>• Mandrake<\/p>\n<p>• Melon<\/p>\n<p>• Millet<\/p>\n<p>• Mint<\/p>\n<p>• Mulberry<\/p>\n<p>• Mustard<\/p>\n<p>• Myrrh<\/p>\n<p>• Myrtle<\/p>\n<p>• Narcissus<\/p>\n<p>• Nard<\/p>\n<p>• Nettle<\/p>\n<p>• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n<p>• Oak<\/p>\n<p>• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n<p>• Oleander<\/p>\n<p>• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Onion<\/p>\n<p>• Palm<\/p>\n<p>• Papyrus<\/p>\n<p>• Pine Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pistachio<\/p>\n<p>• Plane Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pomegranate<\/p>\n<p>• Poplar<\/p>\n<p>• Quince<\/p>\n<p>• Reed<\/p>\n<p>• Rue<\/p>\n<p>• Rush<\/p>\n<p>• Saffron<\/p>\n<p>• Sage<\/p>\n<p>• Spelt<\/p>\n<p>• Storax Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Sycamore<\/p>\n<p>• Tamarisk<\/p>\n<p>• Terebinth<\/p>\n<p>• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n<p>• Tulip<\/p>\n<p>• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n<p>• Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>• Vine<\/p>\n<p>• Walnut<\/p>\n<p>• Water Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Wheat<\/p>\n<p>• Wormwood<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acacia\">Acacia <em>(Acacia tortilis<\/em> and <em>A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. <em>Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. <em>A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acanthus\">Acanthus <em>(Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Algum\">Algum <em>(Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almond\">Almond <em>(Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almug\">Almug <em>(Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. <em>See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aloe\">Aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus <em>Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been <em>Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\n<p>The aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apple\">Apple <em>(Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word <em>tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple <em>(Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apricot\">Apricot <em>(Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identification of the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ash\">Ash <em>(Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi <em>(Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\n<p>The manna tamarisk <em>(Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The flowering or manna ash <em>(Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aspen\">Aspen <em>(Populus euphratica<\/em> or <em>P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of the genus <em>Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Balm\">Balm <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em><em>)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>An oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree <em>(Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\n<p>The lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\n<p>References to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead <em>(Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\n<p>This tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Barley\">Barley <em>(Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley <em>(Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley <em>(H. hex<\/em><em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley <em>(H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bdellium\">Bdellium <em>(Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus <em>Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, <em>Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bean\">Bean <em>(Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BitterHerbs\">Bitter Herbs <em>(Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive <em>(Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxthornEuropean\">Boxthorn, European <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxTree\">Box Tree <em>(Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bramble\">Bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble <em>(R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Broom\">Broom <em>(Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the <span>kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom <em>(Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>The “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant <em>(Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buckthorn\">Buckthorn <em>(Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bush\">Bush <em>(Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Low, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower <em>(Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia <em>(Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buttercup\">Buttercup <em>(Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Calamus\">Calamus <em>(Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em><em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag <em>(Acorus<\/em> <em>calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass <em>(Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cane\">Cane <em>(Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, <em>Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is <em>S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane <em>(S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CaperPlant\">Caper Plant <em>(Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Spiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CarobTree\">Carob Tree <em>(Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Evergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cassia\">Cassia <em>(Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, <em>Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, <em>Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CastorOilPlant\">Castor Oil Plant <em>(Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Large plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cedar\">Cedar <em>(Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Chicory\">Chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cinnamon\">Cinnamon <em>(Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly <em>Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CitronTree\">Citron Tree <em>(Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Coriander\">Coriander <em>(Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cotton\">Cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the <span>kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cucumber\">Cucumber <em>(Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cummin\">Cummin <em>(Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cypress\">Cypress <em>(Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dandelion\">Dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DarnelGrass\">Darnel Grass <em>(Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is generally agreed that the “tares” of the <span>kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dill\">Dill <em>(Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Dill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (<span>kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ebony\">Ebony <em>(Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em><em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree <em>(Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and <em>D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Endive\">Endive <em>(Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FigFigTree\">Fig, Fig Tree <em>(Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\n<p>The fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\n<p>The fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\n<p>Whenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FirTree\">Fir Tree <em>(Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Flax\">Flax <em>(Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\n<p>At least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\n<p>The common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Frankincense\">Frankincense <em>(Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Frankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galbanum\">Galbanum <em>(Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Galbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Garlic\">Garlic <em>(Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GourdWild\">Gourd, Wild <em>(Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hedge\">Hedge <em>(Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Row of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, <em>Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Henna\">Henna <em>(Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\n<p>Henna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyacinth\">Hyacinth <em>(Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyssop\">Hyssop <em>(Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Woody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested <em>Hyssopus offici<\/em><em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\n<p>The “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram <em>(Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\n<p>The hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Juniper\">Juniper <em>(Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Variety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, <em>Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, <em>J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LaurelorSweetBay\">Laurel or Sweet Bay <em>(Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (<span>kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Even though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leek\">Leek <em>(Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lentil\">Lentil <em>(Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lettuce\">Lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lily\">Lily <em>(Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of the genus <em>Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the <span>kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, <em>Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, <span>kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\n<p>An alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, <em>Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\n<p>Another proposed plant is <em>Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\n<p>The references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, <em>Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LotusBush\">Lotus Bush <em>(Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (<span>kjv<\/span>; cf. <span>nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, <em>Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\n<p>Other commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, <em>Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mallow\">Mallow <em>(Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. <em>Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mandrake\">Mandrake <em>(Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, <em>Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Melon\">Melon <em>(Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon <em>(Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon <em>(Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Millet\">Millet <em>(Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mint\">Mint <em>(Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint <em>(Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mulberry\">Mulberry <em>(Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, <em>Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, <em>M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mustard\">Mustard <em>(Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, <em>Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, <em>B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually <em>Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\n<p>While the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrrh\">Myrrh <em>(Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to <em>Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although <em>C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrtle\">Myrtle <em>(Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Narcissus\">Narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Widely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nard\">Nard <em>(Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nettle\">Nettle <em>(Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Plant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, <em>Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, <em>U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, <em>U. urens;<\/em> and <em>U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NutmegFlower\">Nutmeg Flower <em>(Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (<span>kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oak\">Oak <em>(Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak <em>(Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect <em>Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\n<p>A second oak is the valonia oak <em>(Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak <em>(Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is <em>Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “plain” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\n<p>The many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all <span>kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OilTreeOleaster\">Oil Tree, Oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Small Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oleander\">Oleander <em>(Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, <span>kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OliveOliveTree\">Olive, Olive Tree <em>(Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Old world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, <em>Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"Onion\">Onion <em>(Allium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly <em>Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\n<p>Closely related to the onion is the garlic, <em>A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\n<p>Still another one of the onions is the leek, <em>A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Palm\">Palm <em>(Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Papyrus\">Papyrus <em>(Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\n<p>In addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\n<p>The pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PineTree\">Pine Tree <em>(Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine <em>(Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\n<p>Another of the pines is the Aleppo pine, <em>Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the <span>kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pistachio\">Pistachio <em>(Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\n<p>The nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, <em>Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PlaneTree\">Plane Tree <em>(Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pomegranate\">Pomegranate <em>(Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Poplar\">Poplar <em>(Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Fast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The <span>kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, <em>Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n<p>The white poplar <em>(Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Quince\">Quince <em>(Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, <em>Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Reed\">Reed <em>(Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Numerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush <em>(Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush <em>(J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>At least 15 kinds of bulrushes <em>(Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush <em>(Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush <em>(S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush <em>(S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\n<p>The reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed <em>(Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rue\">Rue <em>(Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue <em>(Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\n<p>Rue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rush\">Rush <em>(Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Generic term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola <em>(Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Saffron\">Saffron <em>(Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Saffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of <em>Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus <em>(C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\n<p>Another, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant <em>(Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sage\">Sage <em>(Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\n<p>This plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Spelt\">Spelt <em>(Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Hardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all <span>kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StoraxTree\">Storax Tree <em>(Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sycamore\">Sycamore-fig <em>(Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tamarisk\">Tamarisk <em>(Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. <em>Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Terebinth\">Terebinth <em>(Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThistleThorn\">Thistle, Thorn <em>(Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, <em>Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade <em>(Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\n<p>The thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, <em>Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle <em>(Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury <em>(C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury <em>(C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle <em>(Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\n<p>The references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, <em>Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>The cockle of Job 31:40 (<span>nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, <em>Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\n<p>Many commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn <em>(Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\n<p>The thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn <em>(Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tulip\">Tulip <em>(Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, <em>Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, <em>T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip <em>(T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tumbleweed\">Tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (<span>niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vegetable\">Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>Scriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vine\">Vine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The wild grape <em>(Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Walnut\">Walnut <em>(Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, <em>Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WaterLily\">Water Lily <em>(Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily <em>(Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\n<p>The common European white water lily <em>(N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\n<p>Another water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, <em>N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wheat\">Wheat <em>(Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn <em>(T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar <em>(T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer <em>(T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat <em>(T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, <em>Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\n<p>Corn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>The mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wormwood\">Wormwood <em>(Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Wormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). <em>Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. <em>A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>Absinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\n<p>Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Acacia<\/p>\n<p>• Acanthus<\/p>\n<p>• Algum<\/p>\n<p>• Almond<\/p>\n<p>• Almug<\/p>\n<p>• Aloe<\/p>\n<p>• Apple<\/p>\n<p>• Apricot<\/p>\n<p>• Ash<\/p>\n<p>• Aspen<\/p>\n<p>• Balm<\/p>\n<p>• Barley<\/p>\n<p>• Bdellium<\/p>\n<p>• Bean<\/p>\n<p>• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n<p>• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n<p>• Box Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Bramble<\/p>\n<p>• Broom<\/p>\n<p>• Buckthorn<\/p>\n<p>• Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Buttercup<\/p>\n<p>• Calamus<\/p>\n<p>• Cane<\/p>\n<p>• Caper Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Carob Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Cassia<\/p>\n<p>• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Cedar<\/p>\n<p>• Chicory<\/p>\n<p>• Cinnamon<\/p>\n<p>• Citron Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Coriander<\/p>\n<p>• Cotton<\/p>\n<p>• Cucumber<\/p>\n<p>• Cummin<\/p>\n<p>• Cypress<\/p>\n<p>• Dandelion<\/p>\n<p>• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n<p>• Dill<\/p>\n<p>• Ebony<\/p>\n<p>• Endive<\/p>\n<p>• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Fir Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Flax<\/p>\n<p>• Frankincense<\/p>\n<p>• Galbanum<\/p>\n<p>• Garlic<\/p>\n<p>• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n<p>• Hedge<\/p>\n<p>• Henna<\/p>\n<p>• Hyacinth<\/p>\n<p>• Hyssop<\/p>\n<p>• Juniper<\/p>\n<p>• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n<p>• Leek<\/p>\n<p>• Lentil<\/p>\n<p>• Lettuce<\/p>\n<p>• Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Mallow<\/p>\n<p>• Mandrake<\/p>\n<p>• Melon<\/p>\n<p>• Millet<\/p>\n<p>• Mint<\/p>\n<p>• Mulberry<\/p>\n<p>• Mustard<\/p>\n<p>• Myrrh<\/p>\n<p>• Myrtle<\/p>\n<p>• Narcissus<\/p>\n<p>• Nard<\/p>\n<p>• Nettle<\/p>\n<p>• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n<p>• Oak<\/p>\n<p>• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n<p>• Oleander<\/p>\n<p>• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Onion<\/p>\n<p>• Palm<\/p>\n<p>• Papyrus<\/p>\n<p>• Pine Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pistachio<\/p>\n<p>• Plane Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pomegranate<\/p>\n<p>• Poplar<\/p>\n<p>• Quince<\/p>\n<p>• Reed<\/p>\n<p>• Rue<\/p>\n<p>• Rush<\/p>\n<p>• Saffron<\/p>\n<p>• Sage<\/p>\n<p>• Spelt<\/p>\n<p>• Storax Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Sycamore<\/p>\n<p>• Tamarisk<\/p>\n<p>• Terebinth<\/p>\n<p>• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n<p>• Tulip<\/p>\n<p>• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n<p>• Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>• Vine<\/p>\n<p>• Walnut<\/p>\n<p>• Water Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Wheat<\/p>\n<p>• Wormwood<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acacia\">Acacia <em>(Acacia tortilis<\/em> and <em>A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. <em>Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. <em>A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acanthus\">Acanthus <em>(Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Algum\">Algum <em>(Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almond\">Almond <em>(Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almug\">Almug <em>(Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. <em>See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aloe\">Aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus <em>Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been <em>Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\n<p>The aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apple\">Apple <em>(Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word <em>tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple <em>(Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apricot\">Apricot <em>(Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identification of the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ash\">Ash <em>(Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi <em>(Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\n<p>The manna tamarisk <em>(Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The flowering or manna ash <em>(Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aspen\">Aspen <em>(Populus euphratica<\/em> or <em>P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of the genus <em>Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Balm\">Balm <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em><em>)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>An oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree <em>(Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\n<p>The lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\n<p>References to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead <em>(Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\n<p>This tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Barley\">Barley <em>(Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley <em>(Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley <em>(H. hex<\/em><em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley <em>(H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bdellium\">Bdellium <em>(Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus <em>Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, <em>Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bean\">Bean <em>(Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BitterHerbs\">Bitter Herbs <em>(Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive <em>(Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxthornEuropean\">Boxthorn, European <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxTree\">Box Tree <em>(Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bramble\">Bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble <em>(R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Broom\">Broom <em>(Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the <span>kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom <em>(Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>The “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant <em>(Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buckthorn\">Buckthorn <em>(Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bush\">Bush <em>(Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Low, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower <em>(Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia <em>(Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buttercup\">Buttercup <em>(Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Calamus\">Calamus <em>(Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em><em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag <em>(Acorus<\/em> <em>calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass <em>(Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cane\">Cane <em>(Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, <em>Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is <em>S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane <em>(S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CaperPlant\">Caper Plant <em>(Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Spiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CarobTree\">Carob Tree <em>(Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Evergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cassia\">Cassia <em>(Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, <em>Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, <em>Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CastorOilPlant\">Castor Oil Plant <em>(Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Large plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cedar\">Cedar <em>(Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Chicory\">Chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cinnamon\">Cinnamon <em>(Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly <em>Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CitronTree\">Citron Tree <em>(Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Coriander\">Coriander <em>(Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cotton\">Cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the <span>kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cucumber\">Cucumber <em>(Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cummin\">Cummin <em>(Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cypress\">Cypress <em>(Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dandelion\">Dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DarnelGrass\">Darnel Grass <em>(Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is generally agreed that the “tares” of the <span>kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dill\">Dill <em>(Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Dill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (<span>kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ebony\">Ebony <em>(Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em><em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree <em>(Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and <em>D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Endive\">Endive <em>(Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FigFigTree\">Fig, Fig Tree <em>(Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\n<p>The fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\n<p>The fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\n<p>Whenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FirTree\">Fir Tree <em>(Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Flax\">Flax <em>(Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\n<p>At least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\n<p>The common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Frankincense\">Frankincense <em>(Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Frankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galbanum\">Galbanum <em>(Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Galbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Garlic\">Garlic <em>(Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GourdWild\">Gourd, Wild <em>(Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hedge\">Hedge <em>(Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Row of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, <em>Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Henna\">Henna <em>(Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\n<p>Henna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyacinth\">Hyacinth <em>(Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyssop\">Hyssop <em>(Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Woody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested <em>Hyssopus offici<\/em><em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\n<p>The “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram <em>(Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\n<p>The hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Juniper\">Juniper <em>(Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Variety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, <em>Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, <em>J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LaurelorSweetBay\">Laurel or Sweet Bay <em>(Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (<span>kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Even though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leek\">Leek <em>(Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lentil\">Lentil <em>(Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lettuce\">Lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lily\">Lily <em>(Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of the genus <em>Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the <span>kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, <em>Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, <span>kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\n<p>An alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, <em>Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\n<p>Another proposed plant is <em>Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\n<p>The references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, <em>Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LotusBush\">Lotus Bush <em>(Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (<span>kjv<\/span>; cf. <span>nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, <em>Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\n<p>Other commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, <em>Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mallow\">Mallow <em>(Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. <em>Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mandrake\">Mandrake <em>(Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, <em>Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Melon\">Melon <em>(Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon <em>(Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon <em>(Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Millet\">Millet <em>(Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mint\">Mint <em>(Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint <em>(Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mulberry\">Mulberry <em>(Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, <em>Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, <em>M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mustard\">Mustard <em>(Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, <em>Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, <em>B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually <em>Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\n<p>While the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrrh\">Myrrh <em>(Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to <em>Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although <em>C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrtle\">Myrtle <em>(Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Narcissus\">Narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Widely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nard\">Nard <em>(Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nettle\">Nettle <em>(Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Plant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, <em>Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, <em>U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, <em>U. urens;<\/em> and <em>U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NutmegFlower\">Nutmeg Flower <em>(Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (<span>kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oak\">Oak <em>(Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak <em>(Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect <em>Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\n<p>A second oak is the valonia oak <em>(Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak <em>(Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is <em>Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “plain” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\n<p>The many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all <span>kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OilTreeOleaster\">Oil Tree, Oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Small Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oleander\">Oleander <em>(Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, <span>kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OliveOliveTree\">Olive, Olive Tree <em>(Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Old world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, <em>Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"Onion\">Onion <em>(Allium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly <em>Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\n<p>Closely related to the onion is the garlic, <em>A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\n<p>Still another one of the onions is the leek, <em>A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Palm\">Palm <em>(Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Papyrus\">Papyrus <em>(Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\n<p>In addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\n<p>The pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PineTree\">Pine Tree <em>(Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine <em>(Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\n<p>Another of the pines is the Aleppo pine, <em>Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the <span>kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pistachio\">Pistachio <em>(Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\n<p>The nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, <em>Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PlaneTree\">Plane Tree <em>(Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pomegranate\">Pomegranate <em>(Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Poplar\">Poplar <em>(Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Fast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The <span>kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, <em>Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n<p>The white poplar <em>(Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Quince\">Quince <em>(Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, <em>Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Reed\">Reed <em>(Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Numerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush <em>(Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush <em>(J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>At least 15 kinds of bulrushes <em>(Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush <em>(Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush <em>(S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush <em>(S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\n<p>The reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed <em>(Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rue\">Rue <em>(Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue <em>(Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\n<p>Rue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rush\">Rush <em>(Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Generic term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola <em>(Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Saffron\">Saffron <em>(Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Saffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of <em>Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus <em>(C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\n<p>Another, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant <em>(Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sage\">Sage <em>(Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\n<p>This plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Spelt\">Spelt <em>(Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Hardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all <span>kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StoraxTree\">Storax Tree <em>(Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sycamore\">Sycamore-fig <em>(Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tamarisk\">Tamarisk <em>(Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. <em>Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Terebinth\">Terebinth <em>(Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThistleThorn\">Thistle, Thorn <em>(Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, <em>Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade <em>(Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\n<p>The thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, <em>Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle <em>(Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury <em>(C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury <em>(C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle <em>(Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\n<p>The references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, <em>Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>The cockle of Job 31:40 (<span>nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, <em>Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\n<p>Many commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn <em>(Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\n<p>The thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn <em>(Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tulip\">Tulip <em>(Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, <em>Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, <em>T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip <em>(T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tumbleweed\">Tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (<span>niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vegetable\">Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>Scriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vine\">Vine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The wild grape <em>(Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Walnut\">Walnut <em>(Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, <em>Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WaterLily\">Water Lily <em>(Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily <em>(Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\n<p>The common European white water lily <em>(N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\n<p>Another water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, <em>N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wheat\">Wheat <em>(Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn <em>(T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar <em>(T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer <em>(T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat <em>(T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, <em>Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\n<p>Corn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>The mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wormwood\">Wormwood <em>(Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Wormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). <em>Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. <em>A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>Absinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","summary_en":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45805,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:14","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","summary_en":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73431,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:14","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","summary_en":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101057,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:14","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","summary_en":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128683,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:14","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:14-15<\/strong> The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the <em>thornbush<\/em>, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • <em>Shade<\/em> from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","summary_en":"9:14-15 The trees, preferring an evil king to none at all (cp. 1 Sam 8:18-19), called on the thornbush, who, though neither useful nor pleasing to the eye, accepted the job. The person who had agreed to be king did not have more profitable work to do. • Shade from the burning Middle Eastern sun was precisely what the thornbush could not produce. Accepting such an offer was both futile and foolish.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":22922,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lebanon","title_en":"Lebanon","content_ro":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","summary_en":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":45806,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","summary_en":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73432,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","summary_en":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101058,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","summary_en":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128684,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:16","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:16","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:16-18<\/strong> The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","summary_en":"9:16-18 The people of Shechem had chosen to follow an unworthy man; they had also acted in bad faith by conspiring with Abimelech against Gideon’s family.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":45807,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","summary_en":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73433,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","summary_en":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101059,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","summary_en":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128685,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:19","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:19","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:19-20<\/strong> The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","summary_en":"9:19-20 The Shechemites were invited to decide whether their actions merited blessing or cursing. The implication was that they had acted in bad faith, so they and Abimelech would destroy each other. The Lord is a devouring fire (Heb 12:29), and those who act unfaithfully prove his justice.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":4103,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beer","title_en":"Beer","content_ro":"<h3>BEER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Israelite campsite on their wilderness journey, probably just north of the Arnon River on the Moabite-Amorite border (Nm 21:16). The name means “a well.” Water from the well they dug there was commemorated in a song (Nm 21:17-18). A Moabite well that was later called Beer-elim (Is 15:8) may have been the same location. <em>See<\/em> Wilderness Wanderings.<\/li>\n<li>2. Place to which Gideon’s son Jotham escaped after telling a parable against his half brother Abimelech, who had killed all the other sons of Gideon in an attempt to become king of Israel (Jgs 9:21).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BEER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Israelite campsite on their wilderness journey, probably just north of the Arnon River on the Moabite-Amorite border (Nm 21:16). The name means “a well.” Water from the well they dug there was commemorated in a song (Nm 21:17-18). A Moabite well that was later called Beer-elim (Is 15:8) may have been the same location. <em>See<\/em> Wilderness Wanderings.<\/li>\n<li>2. Place to which Gideon’s son Jotham escaped after telling a parable against his half brother Abimelech, who had killed all the other sons of Gideon in an attempt to become king of Israel (Jgs 9:21).<\/li>","summary_ro":"BEER 1. Israelite campsite on their wilderness journey, probably just north of the Arnon River on the Moabite-Amorite border (Nm 21:16). The name means “a well.” Water from the well they dug there was commemorated in a song (Nm 21:17-18). A Moabite well that was later called Beer-elim (Is 15:8) may have been the same location. See Wilderness Wanderings. 2. Place to which Gideon’s son Jotham escaped after telling a parable against his half brother Abimelech, who had killed all the other sons o...","summary_en":"BEER 1. Israelite campsite on their wilderness journey, probably just north of the Arnon River on the Moabite-Amorite border (Nm 21:16). The name means “a well.” Water from the well they dug there was commemorated in a song (Nm 21:17-18). A Moabite well that was later called Beer-elim (Is 15:8) may have been the same location. See Wilderness Wanderings. 2. Place to which Gideon’s son Jotham escaped after telling a parable against his half brother Abimelech, who had killed all the other sons o...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20908,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jotham","title_en":"Jotham","content_ro":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","summary_en":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"22":[{"id":211,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abimelech","title_en":"Abimelech","content_ro":"<h3>ABIMELECH<\/h3>\n<p>Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites.<\/p>\n<p>1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a married woman, so she was restored to her husband. The same Abimelech and Abraham later entered into a treaty to clarify water rights in the Negev Desert at Beersheba (Gn 21:22-34).<\/p>\n<li>2. King of Gerar in Isaac’s time. Isaac, too, passed off his wife, Rebekah, as his sister at Gerar. Abimelech, perhaps remembering the near judgment on his predecessor, acted decisively to protect Rebekah’s integrity. He proclaimed a death penalty on any who touched her or her husband (Gn 26:1-11). Abimelech asked Isaac to leave Philistine territory because of overcrowding and continuing dispute over water (Gn 26:12-22). Eventually, at Beersheba, Isaac and Abimelech ended their hostility by renewing the treaty made by Abraham and the earlier Abimelech (Gn 26:26-33).<\/li>\n<li>3. Gideon’s son by a concubine in Shechem (Jgs 8:31). After his father’s death, Abimelech conspired with his mother’s family to assassinate his 70 half brothers. Only one of them, Jotham, escaped (Jgs 9:1-5). In Abimelech’s third year of rule, he cruelly suppressed a rebellion (Jgs 9:22-49). Eventually his skull was crushed by a millstone thrown down by a woman on a tower. Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him with a sword so that no one could say he had been killed by a woman (Jgs 9:53-57).<\/li>\n<li>4. Achish, king of the Philistine city of Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15).<\/li>\n<li>5. Abiathar’s son, a priest associated with Zadok in David’s time (1 Chr 18:16).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ABIMELECH<\/h3>\n<p>Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites.<\/p>\n<p>1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a married woman, so she was restored to her husband. The same Abimelech and Abraham later entered into a treaty to clarify water rights in the Negev Desert at Beersheba (Gn 21:22-34).<\/p>\n<li>2. King of Gerar in Isaac’s time. Isaac, too, passed off his wife, Rebekah, as his sister at Gerar. Abimelech, perhaps remembering the near judgment on his predecessor, acted decisively to protect Rebekah’s integrity. He proclaimed a death penalty on any who touched her or her husband (Gn 26:1-11). Abimelech asked Isaac to leave Philistine territory because of overcrowding and continuing dispute over water (Gn 26:12-22). Eventually, at Beersheba, Isaac and Abimelech ended their hostility by renewing the treaty made by Abraham and the earlier Abimelech (Gn 26:26-33).<\/li>\n<li>3. Gideon’s son by a concubine in Shechem (Jgs 8:31). After his father’s death, Abimelech conspired with his mother’s family to assassinate his 70 half brothers. Only one of them, Jotham, escaped (Jgs 9:1-5). In Abimelech’s third year of rule, he cruelly suppressed a rebellion (Jgs 9:22-49). Eventually his skull was crushed by a millstone thrown down by a woman on a tower. Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him with a sword so that no one could say he had been killed by a woman (Jgs 9:53-57).<\/li>\n<li>4. Achish, king of the Philistine city of Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15).<\/li>\n<li>5. Abiathar’s son, a priest associated with Zadok in David’s time (1 Chr 18:16).<\/li>","summary_ro":"ABIMELECH Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites. 1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a ma...","summary_en":"ABIMELECH Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites. 1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a ma...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39629,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Cycle of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges","title_en":"Cycle of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges","content_ro":"<h3>Cycle of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges<\/h3>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><span>Judges\/Oppression<\/span><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><span>Years<\/span><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><span>Dates (<\/span><span>BC<\/span><span>)<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Mesopotamian oppression by Cushan-rishathaim (Judg 3:8)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>8<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1382–1374<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Othniel (Judg 3:11)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>40<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1374–1334<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Moabite oppression by Eglon (Judg 3:14)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>18<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1334–1316<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Ehud (Judg 3:30), including Shamgar<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>80<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1316–1236<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Canaanite oppression by Jabin (Judg 4:3)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>20<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1236–1216<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Deborah and Barak (Judg 5:31)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>40<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1216–1176<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Midianite oppression (Judg 6:6)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>7<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1176–1169<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Gideon, judge (Judg 8:28)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>40<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1169–1129<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Abimelech’s misrule (Judg 9:22 ff.)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>3<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1129–1126<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Tola’s deliverance (Judg 10:1-2)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>23<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1126–1103<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Philistine oppression (Judg 10:7; 13:1), including Ammonites, etc., in the east<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>40<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1103–1063<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Samuel’s judgeship (1 Sm 7:2), including his sons at the end (8:1)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>20<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1063–1043<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<h3>Cycle of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges<\/h3>\n<table>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><span>Judges\/Oppression<\/span><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><span>Years<\/span><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><span>Dates (<\/span><span>BC<\/span><span>)<\/span><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Mesopotamian oppression by Cushan-rishathaim (Judg 3:8)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>8<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1382–1374<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Othniel (Judg 3:11)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>40<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1374–1334<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Moabite oppression by Eglon (Judg 3:14)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>18<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1334–1316<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Ehud (Judg 3:30), including Shamgar<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>80<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1316–1236<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Canaanite oppression by Jabin (Judg 4:3)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>20<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1236–1216<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Deborah and Barak (Judg 5:31)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>40<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1216–1176<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Midianite oppression (Judg 6:6)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>7<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1176–1169<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Gideon, judge (Judg 8:28)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>40<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1169–1129<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Abimelech’s misrule (Judg 9:22 ff.)<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>3<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1129–1126<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Tola’s deliverance (Judg 10:1-2)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>23<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1126–1103<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p><em>Philistine oppression (Judg 10:7; 13:1), including Ammonites, etc., in the east<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>40<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p><em>1103–1063<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>\n<p>Samuel’s judgeship (1 Sm 7:2), including his sons at the end (8:1)<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>20<\/p><\/td>\n <td>\n<p>1063–1043<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Cycle of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges Judges\/Oppression Years Dates (BC) Mesopotamian oppression by Cushan-rishathaim (Judg 3:8) 8 1382–1374 Othniel (Judg 3:11) 40 1374–1334 Moabite oppression by Eglon (Judg 3:14) 18 1334–1316 Ehud (Judg 3:30), including Shamgar 80 1316–1236 Canaanite oppression by Jabin (Judg 4:3) 20 1236–1216 Deborah and Barak (Judg 5:31) 40 1216–1176 Midianite oppression (Judg 6:6) 7 1176–1169 Gideon, judge (Judg 8:28) 40 1169–1129 Abimelech’s misrule (...","summary_en":"Cycle of Oppression and Deliverance in the Book of Judges Judges\/Oppression Years Dates (BC) Mesopotamian oppression by Cushan-rishathaim (Judg 3:8) 8 1382–1374 Othniel (Judg 3:11) 40 1374–1334 Moabite oppression by Eglon (Judg 3:14) 18 1334–1316 Ehud (Judg 3:30), including Shamgar 80 1316–1236 Canaanite oppression by Jabin (Judg 4:3) 20 1236–1216 Deborah and Barak (Judg 5:31) 40 1216–1176 Midianite oppression (Judg 6:6) 7 1176–1169 Gideon, judge (Judg 8:28) 40 1169–1129 Abimelech’s misrule (...","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45808,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","summary_en":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45809,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","summary_en":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45810,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","summary_en":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73434,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","summary_en":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73435,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","summary_en":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73436,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","summary_en":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101060,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","summary_en":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101061,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","summary_en":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101062,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","summary_en":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128686,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-57<\/strong> Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","summary_en":"9:22-57 Theological statements in 9:23-24 and 9:56-57 frame the account of the civil strife that led to the destruction of Abimelech and Shechem, which was divine fulfillment of the curse set out by Jotham (9:19-20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128687,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-25<\/strong> As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), <em>Abimelech<\/em> was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","summary_en":"9:22-25 As prophesied in the fable (9:8-15), Abimelech was unable to live up to the Shechemites’ expectations, so they conspired against him.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128688,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:22","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:22-23<\/strong> It took <em>three years<\/em> to bring about what God had decreed. The <em>spirit that stirred up trouble<\/em> found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","summary_en":"9:22-23 It took three years to bring about what God had decreed. The spirit that stirred up trouble found willing hearts. Those condemned for their folly participated fully in their own demise; they brought it on themselves.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":9262,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Demon","title_en":"Demon","content_ro":"<h3>DEMON<\/h3>\n<p>Fallen angel who, under the leadership of Satan, rebelled against God. Demonism is the activity of demons, while demonology is the study of demons and their activity for the purpose of knowing the tactics of the enemy (2 Cor 2:11) in order to properly exercise authority over them (Lk 10:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhoDemonsAre\">Who Demons Are<\/p>\n<p>The English word “demon” is derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">daimon<\/span><em>,<\/em> which essentially means “a divinity, a deity” (i.e., a false deity, a demon; cf. 1 Cor 10:20). Any deity other than the one true God is a spirit opposed to him; therefore, such a spirit is an evil spirit, or demon. The word “demon” does not appear in the <span>kjv<\/span>, which mistranslates <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">daimon<\/span> as “devil.” There is only one devil (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">diabolos<\/span>), who is known by a variety of names, titles, and epithets in the Bible. He is the prince or ruler of all the other demons, who are subject to him.<\/p>\n<p>Often in the Bible the word “spirit” is used for demon, along with a descriptive or identifying phrase; for example, “evil spirit” (Acts 19:12-13), “unclean spirit” (Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23, 26; Acts 5:16), “spirit of infirmity” (Lk 13:11), “dumb and deaf spirit” (Mk 9:25) (all quotes from the <span>rsv<\/span>). Spirits may be identified by their specific role or function, such as a spirit of murder, suicide, lust, depression, fear, lying, etc., associating them with various sins or attitudes contrary to God.<\/p>\n<p>In the Hebrew OT there is no word for “demon.” The term “evil spirit” occurs (Jgs 9:23; 1 Sm 16:14-23; 18:10; 19:9). In the <span>kjv<\/span> there are references to “a lying spirit” (1 Kgs 22:22-23; 2 Chr 18:20-22), “familiar spirit” (1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 33:6), “perverse spirit” (Is 19:14), “spirit of deep sleep” (29:10), and “spirit of whoredoms” (Hos 4:12; 5:4).<\/p>\n<p>A specific powerful demon referred to by title in the OT is “the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” who hindered the archangel Gabriel from coming to bring information to Daniel, so that the archangel Michael came to Gabriel’s assistance (Dn 10:13).<\/p>\n<p>The number of demons is unknown; it appears that it is a vast number, perhaps incalculable. From Revelation 12:4 it is inferred that one-third of the angels were led astray by Satan. This means that the hosts of heaven outnumber Satan’s powers by two to one. Ephesians 6:12 suggests an order or rank of demons: “principalities,” “powers,” “world rulers of this present darkness,” “spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Demons are created beings—personal, immortal, and incapable of reconciliation with God. They have great power as compared with humans, but little power as compared with God. God has given us authority over them, so that in the name of Jesus they must obey God’s people, even as they must obey the Lord himself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhatDemonsDo\">What Demons Do<\/p>\n<p>Angels were created to worship and praise God, to serve him, and to act as his messengers. The Bible states that they are “spirits sent from God to care for those who will receive salvation” (Heb 1:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). The fallen angels have a similar function but a different master. Their allegiance is to the devil, whom they serve out of fear and delusion. They desire to work with human beings, but their purpose is to carry out the schemes of Satan and to oppose God. They tempt, deceive, and delude people so as to bring them to eternal damnation. In opposing God they attack, oppress, hinder, and accuse the people of God.<\/p>\n<p>Since Satan is not omnipresent, he uses his demonic hosts to execute his will; for example, in the parable of the sower (Mt 13:3-9; Mk 4:1-20; Lk 8:4-15) they snatch away the word before it can take root (Mk 4:15). By persecution, Satan causes some to fall away before they have made a genuine commitment (v 17). By the cares of the world and the delight in riches and the desire for material things, he chokes the word so that little or no fruit is produced (v 19).<\/p>\n<p>Basically, demons operate according to the pattern set by Satan in his threefold approach with Eve: (1) they deny the truth of the word of God and challenge its statements; (2) they deny the reality of death (typically they substitute something like reincarnation); and (3) they appeal to human vanity and pride by telling men and women that they can become like God or be gods (Gn 3:1-5). These also are the basic methods and teachings underlying most cults and false religions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDestinyofDemons\">The Final Destiny of Demons<\/p>\n<p>It is written concerning the angels who sinned that God “cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (2 Pt 2:4, <span>rsv<\/span>). The Lord spoke of the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, into which the cursed among humans are also to go (Mt 25:41). Eventually Satan and his host will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rv 20:10), which is also the place of eternal torment for all whose names are not written in the Book of Life (vv 12-15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Demon-possession.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEMON<\/h3>\n<p>Fallen angel who, under the leadership of Satan, rebelled against God. Demonism is the activity of demons, while demonology is the study of demons and their activity for the purpose of knowing the tactics of the enemy (2 Cor 2:11) in order to properly exercise authority over them (Lk 10:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhoDemonsAre\">Who Demons Are<\/p>\n<p>The English word “demon” is derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">daimon<\/span><em>,<\/em> which essentially means “a divinity, a deity” (i.e., a false deity, a demon; cf. 1 Cor 10:20). Any deity other than the one true God is a spirit opposed to him; therefore, such a spirit is an evil spirit, or demon. The word “demon” does not appear in the <span>kjv<\/span>, which mistranslates <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">daimon<\/span> as “devil.” There is only one devil (Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">diabolos<\/span>), who is known by a variety of names, titles, and epithets in the Bible. He is the prince or ruler of all the other demons, who are subject to him.<\/p>\n<p>Often in the Bible the word “spirit” is used for demon, along with a descriptive or identifying phrase; for example, “evil spirit” (Acts 19:12-13), “unclean spirit” (Mt 10:1; Mk 1:23, 26; Acts 5:16), “spirit of infirmity” (Lk 13:11), “dumb and deaf spirit” (Mk 9:25) (all quotes from the <span>rsv<\/span>). Spirits may be identified by their specific role or function, such as a spirit of murder, suicide, lust, depression, fear, lying, etc., associating them with various sins or attitudes contrary to God.<\/p>\n<p>In the Hebrew OT there is no word for “demon.” The term “evil spirit” occurs (Jgs 9:23; 1 Sm 16:14-23; 18:10; 19:9). In the <span>kjv<\/span> there are references to “a lying spirit” (1 Kgs 22:22-23; 2 Chr 18:20-22), “familiar spirit” (1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 33:6), “perverse spirit” (Is 19:14), “spirit of deep sleep” (29:10), and “spirit of whoredoms” (Hos 4:12; 5:4).<\/p>\n<p>A specific powerful demon referred to by title in the OT is “the prince of the kingdom of Persia,” who hindered the archangel Gabriel from coming to bring information to Daniel, so that the archangel Michael came to Gabriel’s assistance (Dn 10:13).<\/p>\n<p>The number of demons is unknown; it appears that it is a vast number, perhaps incalculable. From Revelation 12:4 it is inferred that one-third of the angels were led astray by Satan. This means that the hosts of heaven outnumber Satan’s powers by two to one. Ephesians 6:12 suggests an order or rank of demons: “principalities,” “powers,” “world rulers of this present darkness,” “spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Demons are created beings—personal, immortal, and incapable of reconciliation with God. They have great power as compared with humans, but little power as compared with God. God has given us authority over them, so that in the name of Jesus they must obey God’s people, even as they must obey the Lord himself.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WhatDemonsDo\">What Demons Do<\/p>\n<p>Angels were created to worship and praise God, to serve him, and to act as his messengers. The Bible states that they are “spirits sent from God to care for those who will receive salvation” (Heb 1:14, <span>nlt<\/span>). The fallen angels have a similar function but a different master. Their allegiance is to the devil, whom they serve out of fear and delusion. They desire to work with human beings, but their purpose is to carry out the schemes of Satan and to oppose God. They tempt, deceive, and delude people so as to bring them to eternal damnation. In opposing God they attack, oppress, hinder, and accuse the people of God.<\/p>\n<p>Since Satan is not omnipresent, he uses his demonic hosts to execute his will; for example, in the parable of the sower (Mt 13:3-9; Mk 4:1-20; Lk 8:4-15) they snatch away the word before it can take root (Mk 4:15). By persecution, Satan causes some to fall away before they have made a genuine commitment (v 17). By the cares of the world and the delight in riches and the desire for material things, he chokes the word so that little or no fruit is produced (v 19).<\/p>\n<p>Basically, demons operate according to the pattern set by Satan in his threefold approach with Eve: (1) they deny the truth of the word of God and challenge its statements; (2) they deny the reality of death (typically they substitute something like reincarnation); and (3) they appeal to human vanity and pride by telling men and women that they can become like God or be gods (Gn 3:1-5). These also are the basic methods and teachings underlying most cults and false religions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheFinalDestinyofDemons\">The Final Destiny of Demons<\/p>\n<p>It is written concerning the angels who sinned that God “cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment” (2 Pt 2:4, <span>rsv<\/span>). The Lord spoke of the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, into which the cursed among humans are also to go (Mt 25:41). Eventually Satan and his host will be thrown into the lake of fire (Rv 20:10), which is also the place of eternal torment for all whose names are not written in the Book of Life (vv 12-15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Demon-possession.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEMON Fallen angel who, under the leadership of Satan, rebelled against God. Demonism is the activity of demons, while demonology is the study of demons and their activity for the purpose of knowing the tactics of the enemy (2 Cor 2:11) in order to properly exercise authority over them (Lk 10:19). Who Demons Are The English word “demon” is derived from the Greek daimon, which essentially means “a divinity, a deity” (i.e., a false deity, a demon; cf. 1 Cor 10:20). Any deity other than the one ...","summary_en":"DEMON Fallen angel who, under the leadership of Satan, rebelled against God. Demonism is the activity of demons, while demonology is the study of demons and their activity for the purpose of knowing the tactics of the enemy (2 Cor 2:11) in order to properly exercise authority over them (Lk 10:19). Who Demons Are The English word “demon” is derived from the Greek daimon, which essentially means “a divinity, a deity” (i.e., a false deity, a demon; cf. 1 Cor 10:20). Any deity other than the one ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36056,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"25":[{"id":45811,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","summary_en":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73437,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","summary_en":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101063,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","summary_en":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128689,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:25","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:25","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:25<\/strong> An informer foiled the <em>plot<\/em> against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","summary_en":"9:25 An informer foiled the plot against Abimelech, but social conditions were deteriorating as God’s curse played out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":9986,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ebed","title_en":"Ebed","content_ro":"<h3>EBED<\/h3>\n<li>1. Gaal’s father (Jgs 9:26-35). Gaal led the men of Shechem in an unsuccessful revolt against Abimelech, judge of Israel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Adin’s descendant and son of Jonathan. Ebed was the head of a family that returned to Judah with Ezra after the exile (Ezr 8:6).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>EBED<\/h3>\n<li>1. Gaal’s father (Jgs 9:26-35). Gaal led the men of Shechem in an unsuccessful revolt against Abimelech, judge of Israel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Adin’s descendant and son of Jonathan. Ebed was the head of a family that returned to Judah with Ezra after the exile (Ezr 8:6).<\/li>","summary_ro":"EBED 1. Gaal’s father (Jgs 9:26-35). Gaal led the men of Shechem in an unsuccessful revolt against Abimelech, judge of Israel. 2. Adin’s descendant and son of Jonathan. Ebed was the head of a family that returned to Judah with Ezra after the exile (Ezr 8:6).","summary_en":"EBED 1. Gaal’s father (Jgs 9:26-35). Gaal led the men of Shechem in an unsuccessful revolt against Abimelech, judge of Israel. 2. Adin’s descendant and son of Jonathan. Ebed was the head of a family that returned to Judah with Ezra after the exile (Ezr 8:6).","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":12993,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gaal","title_en":"Gaal","content_ro":"<h3>GAAL<\/h3>\n<p>Ebed’s son, who persuaded the men of Shechem to revolt against Abimelech, the judge of Israel. The revolt, however, was quickly crushed and Shechem was destroyed (Jgs 9:26-41).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GAAL<\/h3>\n<p>Ebed’s son, who persuaded the men of Shechem to revolt against Abimelech, the judge of Israel. The revolt, however, was quickly crushed and Shechem was destroyed (Jgs 9:26-41).<\/p>","summary_ro":"GAAL Ebed’s son, who persuaded the men of Shechem to revolt against Abimelech, the judge of Israel. The revolt, however, was quickly crushed and Shechem was destroyed (Jgs 9:26-41).","summary_en":"GAAL Ebed’s son, who persuaded the men of Shechem to revolt against Abimelech, the judge of Israel. The revolt, however, was quickly crushed and Shechem was destroyed (Jgs 9:26-41).","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45812,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","summary_en":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73438,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","summary_en":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101064,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","summary_en":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128690,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:26","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:26","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:26-41<\/strong> <em>Gaal son of Ebed<\/em> (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","summary_en":"9:26-41 Gaal son of Ebed (“vile son of a slave”) led an unsuccessful rebellion against Abimelech in which many of Shechem’s citizens were killed. This partially fulfilled Jotham’s curse (9:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":754,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Agriculture*","title_en":"Agriculture*","content_ro":"<h3>AGRICULTURE*<\/h3>\n<p>During Bible times agriculture took the same three main forms found in Palestine today. Emphasis on each of these has depended upon the social and technological status of the people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Herding<\/p>\n<p>• Field Cropping<\/p>\n<p>• Fruit Raising<\/p>\n<p>• Cultivating<\/p>\n<p>• Harvesting<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Herding\">Herding<\/p>\n<p>Raising livestock is one of the first occupations mentioned in the Scriptures. Abel (Gn 4:2) and Jabal (Gn 4:20) were keepers of sheep or had cattle. This occupation fit the seminomadic life, providing both food and clothing while requiring a minimum of techniques and equipment.<\/p>\n<p>The patriarchs were mainly herdsmen, pasturing their sheep and cattle on common land and generally neglecting to till the soil. Jacob and his sons entered Egypt as shepherds (Gn 47:3). Later this pastoral life is still found in the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh in Transjordan (Nm 32:1) and in certain of the tribes dwelling in the western Palestinian hills (1 Sm 25:2). Herding continued to be a part of Hebrew agriculture even in postnomadic days, partly because the animals utilized less productive lands and partly because of the people’s traditions. Important among these traditions were the sacrifices performed in the temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FieldCropping\">Field Cropping<\/p>\n<p>Most authorities agree that the Israelites learned field agriculture from the Canaanites, since contact with these people was contemporaneous with the settling of the Promised Land. The raising of grain is known to have existed before that time. Cain was a tiller of the soil (Gn 4:2), although it is uncertain what he raised. Archaeologists date the existence of grain farming to around 6800 <span>BC<\/span> in the Near East. Isaac sowed in Gerar (Gn 26:12), and Joseph dreamed of sheaves of grain (Gn 37:6-7). Joseph probably learned more about farming grain from the Egyptians, who raised it on the fertile soils of the Nile floodplain.<\/p>\n<p>Yet it was from contact with the Canaanites that Israelites began to raise grain. The productivity of Canaan was reported by Joshua and Caleb at Kadesh-barnea (Nm 13:26), and the Canaanites, who were later conquered, were no doubt made to initiate their conquerors into agricultural practices. Probably such a relationship contributed to the continual Israelite lapses into idolatry (Jgs 9:27). How rapidly they made the transition from the purely nomadic life is not clear. Some tribes never did shed the nomadic way, but cultivation of the soil seems to have been common by the time of the kings (2 Sm 14:30).<\/p>\n<p>Of the cereals raised, wheat was one of the most important. Solomon sent great amounts of it, along with barley and oil, to Hiram (2 Chr 2:10), and it continued to be a chief item of export (Ez 27:17). Barley was second in importance. In early times it was the chief ingredient of bread (Jgs 7:13); later it became an important food for the poorer classes (Jn 6:9, 13). It was also fed to cattle.<\/p>\n<p>Other field crops were beans and lentils (2 Sm 17:28), which were ground into meal and sometimes used for bread (Ez 4:9). Leeks, garlic, and onions were raised for seasoning, and cumin, coriander, dill, mint, rue, and mustard for spices. Flax was important (Jos 2:6). Some cotton was grown (Is 19:9). The fiber supply was supplemented with wool. By Roman times cotton had become much more important than flax.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FruitRaising\">Fruit Raising<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites became well settled, orchards and vineyards were planted and came to be symbols of prosperity. Vineyards supplied wine to drink. Olive orchards provided oil for cooking, cosmetics, and medicine. Figs and pomegranates were also grown. For all of these crops more skill and equipment became necessary.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cultivating\">Cultivating<\/p>\n<p>Throughout biblical times, much of the labor for agriculture came from the farmer himself. To plant for the first time, it was necessary to clear the land of forest (Jos 17:18), stones (Is 5:2), weeds, and thorns. Sometimes the thin soil on hillsides was terraced, and sometimes irrigation was employed. Such tasks limited the size of farms so that only the wealthy, such as Job and Boaz, had large holdings.<\/p>\n<p>To till the land, farmers used oxen or cows to pull very primitive plows (Jgs 14:18; Am 6:12). Occasionally an ass was used (Dt 22:10). Clods were broken with a hoe or the driver’s goad. The surface was evened by drawing a simple harrow, perhaps only a thornbush, or a stoneboat over it. Seed was sown by hand, sometimes carefully in the furrow, and covered lightly with the harrow or stoneboat. Weeds were controlled by the plow, harrow, or hoe.<\/p>\n\n<p>Implements did not change much during Bible times. The plow consisted of an upright J-shaped piece of hardwood so fixed to be drawn by oxen at one end and held by the driver at the other. Such a primitive device could break up only four to five inches (10 to 13 centimeters) of soil. After the exodus, iron became available for the tip of the plow (1 Sm 13:20), but this served mainly to cut down wear on the point.<\/p>\n<p>The use of fertilizer was very limited on Palestinian farms. Of course, ceremonial law requiring that the soil lie fallow every seventh year helped to replenish water and nutrients, or at least delay their depletion. Manuring of fields was not common because dung was used for fuel. However, there is some mention of this practice in Scripture (Lk 13:8, where dung is placed around trees). There is mention in the Mishnah of the use of wood ashes, leaves, blood of slaughtered animals, and oil scum for fertilizer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Harvesting\">Harvesting<\/p>\n<p>Seeding was done at the beginning of the rainy season and harvesting was begun at the end. Harvesting lasted at least seven weeks. Some crops were pulled up by the roots (pulse), others were dug with a hoe (some grain), but most were cut with a sickle. Iron sickles have been found in archaeological excavations, some with cutting edges set with flakes of flint. The cut grain was tied in sheaves (Ps 126:6) and cast into heaps to be transported to the threshing floor. Barley was harvested first and wheat last.<\/p>\n<p>Small quantities of grain, dill, cumin, and other small crops were beaten out with a flail (Jgs 6:11; Ru 2:17), but most grain was threshed on a floor placed on high ground so that the wind would carry off the chaff. The usual method was to scatter the loosened bundles of straw on the floor and to drive oxen over them to dislodge the grains. Sometimes heavy implements were drawn over the straw (Is 28:27; 41:15). These were weighted by stones and ridden by the driver. The resulting bits of straw, or chaff, were separated from the grain by a tedious winnowing process that involved throwing the material in the air with a fork or shovel (Is 30:24; Jer 15:7). The lighter straw would be blown to the edge of the floor, and the grain would collect at the feet of the worker. The chaff was burned or used as fodder. Grain was sifted (Am 9:9), shoveled into a heap, and later stored in covered pits in the field (Jer 41:8). Sometimes storehouses or granaries were used (Dt 28:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Plants; Harvest; Palestine; Vines, Vineyard; Food and Food Preparation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AGRICULTURE*<\/h3>\n<p>During Bible times agriculture took the same three main forms found in Palestine today. Emphasis on each of these has depended upon the social and technological status of the people.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Herding<\/p>\n<p>• Field Cropping<\/p>\n<p>• Fruit Raising<\/p>\n<p>• Cultivating<\/p>\n<p>• Harvesting<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Herding\">Herding<\/p>\n<p>Raising livestock is one of the first occupations mentioned in the Scriptures. Abel (Gn 4:2) and Jabal (Gn 4:20) were keepers of sheep or had cattle. This occupation fit the seminomadic life, providing both food and clothing while requiring a minimum of techniques and equipment.<\/p>\n<p>The patriarchs were mainly herdsmen, pasturing their sheep and cattle on common land and generally neglecting to till the soil. Jacob and his sons entered Egypt as shepherds (Gn 47:3). Later this pastoral life is still found in the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh in Transjordan (Nm 32:1) and in certain of the tribes dwelling in the western Palestinian hills (1 Sm 25:2). Herding continued to be a part of Hebrew agriculture even in postnomadic days, partly because the animals utilized less productive lands and partly because of the people’s traditions. Important among these traditions were the sacrifices performed in the temple.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FieldCropping\">Field Cropping<\/p>\n<p>Most authorities agree that the Israelites learned field agriculture from the Canaanites, since contact with these people was contemporaneous with the settling of the Promised Land. The raising of grain is known to have existed before that time. Cain was a tiller of the soil (Gn 4:2), although it is uncertain what he raised. Archaeologists date the existence of grain farming to around 6800 <span>BC<\/span> in the Near East. Isaac sowed in Gerar (Gn 26:12), and Joseph dreamed of sheaves of grain (Gn 37:6-7). Joseph probably learned more about farming grain from the Egyptians, who raised it on the fertile soils of the Nile floodplain.<\/p>\n<p>Yet it was from contact with the Canaanites that Israelites began to raise grain. The productivity of Canaan was reported by Joshua and Caleb at Kadesh-barnea (Nm 13:26), and the Canaanites, who were later conquered, were no doubt made to initiate their conquerors into agricultural practices. Probably such a relationship contributed to the continual Israelite lapses into idolatry (Jgs 9:27). How rapidly they made the transition from the purely nomadic life is not clear. Some tribes never did shed the nomadic way, but cultivation of the soil seems to have been common by the time of the kings (2 Sm 14:30).<\/p>\n<p>Of the cereals raised, wheat was one of the most important. Solomon sent great amounts of it, along with barley and oil, to Hiram (2 Chr 2:10), and it continued to be a chief item of export (Ez 27:17). Barley was second in importance. In early times it was the chief ingredient of bread (Jgs 7:13); later it became an important food for the poorer classes (Jn 6:9, 13). It was also fed to cattle.<\/p>\n<p>Other field crops were beans and lentils (2 Sm 17:28), which were ground into meal and sometimes used for bread (Ez 4:9). Leeks, garlic, and onions were raised for seasoning, and cumin, coriander, dill, mint, rue, and mustard for spices. Flax was important (Jos 2:6). Some cotton was grown (Is 19:9). The fiber supply was supplemented with wool. By Roman times cotton had become much more important than flax.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FruitRaising\">Fruit Raising<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites became well settled, orchards and vineyards were planted and came to be symbols of prosperity. Vineyards supplied wine to drink. Olive orchards provided oil for cooking, cosmetics, and medicine. Figs and pomegranates were also grown. For all of these crops more skill and equipment became necessary.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cultivating\">Cultivating<\/p>\n<p>Throughout biblical times, much of the labor for agriculture came from the farmer himself. To plant for the first time, it was necessary to clear the land of forest (Jos 17:18), stones (Is 5:2), weeds, and thorns. Sometimes the thin soil on hillsides was terraced, and sometimes irrigation was employed. Such tasks limited the size of farms so that only the wealthy, such as Job and Boaz, had large holdings.<\/p>\n<p>To till the land, farmers used oxen or cows to pull very primitive plows (Jgs 14:18; Am 6:12). Occasionally an ass was used (Dt 22:10). Clods were broken with a hoe or the driver’s goad. The surface was evened by drawing a simple harrow, perhaps only a thornbush, or a stoneboat over it. Seed was sown by hand, sometimes carefully in the furrow, and covered lightly with the harrow or stoneboat. Weeds were controlled by the plow, harrow, or hoe.<\/p>\n\n<p>Implements did not change much during Bible times. The plow consisted of an upright J-shaped piece of hardwood so fixed to be drawn by oxen at one end and held by the driver at the other. Such a primitive device could break up only four to five inches (10 to 13 centimeters) of soil. After the exodus, iron became available for the tip of the plow (1 Sm 13:20), but this served mainly to cut down wear on the point.<\/p>\n<p>The use of fertilizer was very limited on Palestinian farms. Of course, ceremonial law requiring that the soil lie fallow every seventh year helped to replenish water and nutrients, or at least delay their depletion. Manuring of fields was not common because dung was used for fuel. However, there is some mention of this practice in Scripture (Lk 13:8, where dung is placed around trees). There is mention in the Mishnah of the use of wood ashes, leaves, blood of slaughtered animals, and oil scum for fertilizer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Harvesting\">Harvesting<\/p>\n<p>Seeding was done at the beginning of the rainy season and harvesting was begun at the end. Harvesting lasted at least seven weeks. Some crops were pulled up by the roots (pulse), others were dug with a hoe (some grain), but most were cut with a sickle. Iron sickles have been found in archaeological excavations, some with cutting edges set with flakes of flint. The cut grain was tied in sheaves (Ps 126:6) and cast into heaps to be transported to the threshing floor. Barley was harvested first and wheat last.<\/p>\n<p>Small quantities of grain, dill, cumin, and other small crops were beaten out with a flail (Jgs 6:11; Ru 2:17), but most grain was threshed on a floor placed on high ground so that the wind would carry off the chaff. The usual method was to scatter the loosened bundles of straw on the floor and to drive oxen over them to dislodge the grains. Sometimes heavy implements were drawn over the straw (Is 28:27; 41:15). These were weighted by stones and ridden by the driver. The resulting bits of straw, or chaff, were separated from the grain by a tedious winnowing process that involved throwing the material in the air with a fork or shovel (Is 30:24; Jer 15:7). The lighter straw would be blown to the edge of the floor, and the grain would collect at the feet of the worker. The chaff was burned or used as fodder. Grain was sifted (Am 9:9), shoveled into a heap, and later stored in covered pits in the field (Jer 41:8). Sometimes storehouses or granaries were used (Dt 28:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Plants; Harvest; Palestine; Vines, Vineyard; Food and Food Preparation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"AGRICULTURE* During Bible times agriculture took the same three main forms found in Palestine today. Emphasis on each of these has depended upon the social and technological status of the people. Preview • Herding • Field Cropping • Fruit Raising • Cultivating • Harvesting Herding Raising livestock is one of the first occupations mentioned in the Scriptures. Abel (Gn 4:2) and Jabal (Gn 4:20) were keepers of sheep or had cattle. This occupation fit the seminomadic life, providing both food and...","summary_en":"AGRICULTURE* During Bible times agriculture took the same three main forms found in Palestine today. Emphasis on each of these has depended upon the social and technological status of the people. Preview • Herding • Field Cropping • Fruit Raising • Cultivating • Harvesting Herding Raising livestock is one of the first occupations mentioned in the Scriptures. Abel (Gn 4:2) and Jabal (Gn 4:20) were keepers of sheep or had cattle. This occupation fit the seminomadic life, providing both food and...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":3644,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Banquet","title_en":"Banquet","content_ro":"<h3>BANQUET<\/h3>\n<p>Lavish ceremonial meal, usually held in honor of some notable event or person; also a symbol of the feast to be given by Christ in the kingdom of God. Banqueting and feasting were major parts of the social and religious life of biblical times. In addition to the religious feasts prescribed by Mosaic law, banquets and feasts were celebrated on nearly any occasion of joy or solemnity: at the ratification of covenants (Gn 26:30; 31:54; Ex 24:11); at weddings (Gn 29:22; Jgs 14:10); at harvest (Jgs 9:27; Ru 3:1-3); at the shearing of sheep (1 Sm 25:11; 2 Sm 13:23-29); at the arrival of guests (Gn 19:3); at the weaning of a child (21:8); at coronations (1 Kgs 1:9, 19-25); on various state occasions (Est 1:3-9; 2:18; 5:4-8); and for many other reasons.<\/p>\n<p>Many customs associated with banquets in the ancient Near East are portrayed in the Bible and in extrabiblical literature; wall reliefs and carvings from some excavations also depict banquet scenes. The sequence of banquet preparation in Proverbs 9:2-5, Matthew 22:1-14, and Luke 14:15-24 is also known from the legend of King Keret in Ugaritic literature: (1) preparation of the foods, (2) sending messengers with the invitation and announcement that all is ready, and (3) the presentation of food and wine in order. The prophet Amos portrays a lavish feast and shows the main eating customs (Am 6:4-6). Meals were ordinarily taken while reclining on a couch before a table (Est 1:6; Ez 23:41; Am 6:4; Mt 9:10; Lk 7:49; 14:10, 15).<\/p>\n<p>Banquet imagery is prominent in both Testaments with reference to the kingdom of God. Isaiah foresaw the judgment of the nations and the deliverance of Israel followed by the Lord’s reign over his people (Is 24:23); inauguration of that reign is accompanied by a huge banquet to which all peoples are invited (Is 25:6-8; cf. Lk 13:29). Meals shared following the sacrifice of animals in the OT prefigure that great feast when there will be no more death, tears, or reproach for the people of God (Is 25:7; cf. Rv 21:4). The banquet of the new covenant likewise directs attention to the future, when the redeemed will drink fine wine (Is 25:6) with Christ in the kingdom of God (Lk 22:14-20). By participating in the Lord’s Supper (Communion), all Christians anticipate that great feast.<\/p>\n<p>That future, final banquet in the kingdom of God is also pictured specifically as a wedding feast; all is in readiness, the invitation is issued to many, but few are chosen (Mt 22:1-14). The church looks forward to the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rv 19:7-9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BANQUET<\/h3>\n<p>Lavish ceremonial meal, usually held in honor of some notable event or person; also a symbol of the feast to be given by Christ in the kingdom of God. Banqueting and feasting were major parts of the social and religious life of biblical times. In addition to the religious feasts prescribed by Mosaic law, banquets and feasts were celebrated on nearly any occasion of joy or solemnity: at the ratification of covenants (Gn 26:30; 31:54; Ex 24:11); at weddings (Gn 29:22; Jgs 14:10); at harvest (Jgs 9:27; Ru 3:1-3); at the shearing of sheep (1 Sm 25:11; 2 Sm 13:23-29); at the arrival of guests (Gn 19:3); at the weaning of a child (21:8); at coronations (1 Kgs 1:9, 19-25); on various state occasions (Est 1:3-9; 2:18; 5:4-8); and for many other reasons.<\/p>\n<p>Many customs associated with banquets in the ancient Near East are portrayed in the Bible and in extrabiblical literature; wall reliefs and carvings from some excavations also depict banquet scenes. The sequence of banquet preparation in Proverbs 9:2-5, Matthew 22:1-14, and Luke 14:15-24 is also known from the legend of King Keret in Ugaritic literature: (1) preparation of the foods, (2) sending messengers with the invitation and announcement that all is ready, and (3) the presentation of food and wine in order. The prophet Amos portrays a lavish feast and shows the main eating customs (Am 6:4-6). Meals were ordinarily taken while reclining on a couch before a table (Est 1:6; Ez 23:41; Am 6:4; Mt 9:10; Lk 7:49; 14:10, 15).<\/p>\n<p>Banquet imagery is prominent in both Testaments with reference to the kingdom of God. Isaiah foresaw the judgment of the nations and the deliverance of Israel followed by the Lord’s reign over his people (Is 24:23); inauguration of that reign is accompanied by a huge banquet to which all peoples are invited (Is 25:6-8; cf. Lk 13:29). Meals shared following the sacrifice of animals in the OT prefigure that great feast when there will be no more death, tears, or reproach for the people of God (Is 25:7; cf. Rv 21:4). The banquet of the new covenant likewise directs attention to the future, when the redeemed will drink fine wine (Is 25:6) with Christ in the kingdom of God (Lk 22:14-20). By participating in the Lord’s Supper (Communion), all Christians anticipate that great feast.<\/p>\n<p>That future, final banquet in the kingdom of God is also pictured specifically as a wedding feast; all is in readiness, the invitation is issued to many, but few are chosen (Mt 22:1-14). The church looks forward to the marriage feast of the Lamb (Rv 19:7-9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BANQUET Lavish ceremonial meal, usually held in honor of some notable event or person; also a symbol of the feast to be given by Christ in the kingdom of God. Banqueting and feasting were major parts of the social and religious life of biblical times. In addition to the religious feasts prescribed by Mosaic law, banquets and feasts were celebrated on nearly any occasion of joy or solemnity: at the ratification of covenants (Gn 26:30; 31:54; Ex 24:11); at weddings (Gn 29:22; Jgs 14:10); at har...","summary_en":"BANQUET Lavish ceremonial meal, usually held in honor of some notable event or person; also a symbol of the feast to be given by Christ in the kingdom of God. Banqueting and feasting were major parts of the social and religious life of biblical times. In addition to the religious feasts prescribed by Mosaic law, banquets and feasts were celebrated on nearly any occasion of joy or solemnity: at the ratification of covenants (Gn 26:30; 31:54; Ex 24:11); at weddings (Gn 29:22; Jgs 14:10); at har...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45813,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:27","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","summary_en":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73439,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:27","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","summary_en":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101065,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:27","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","summary_en":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128691,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:27","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:27-29<\/strong> Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of <em>wine<\/em> and loose talk made it easy for <em>Gaal<\/em> to gain initial acceptance.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","summary_en":"9:27-29 Disillusionment with Abimelech, social unrest, and lots of wine and loose talk made it easy for Gaal to gain initial acceptance.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"28":[{"id":38988,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zebul","title_en":"Zebul","content_ro":"<h3>ZEBUL<\/h3>\n<p>Ruler of Shechem who served as an officer of Abimelech (Jgs 9:28-30). Zebul apparently obtained his position when Abimelech was crowned king at Shechem. When Gaal the son of Ebed incited the Shechemites to rebel against Abimelech, Zebul played an instrumental role in Abimelech’s victory. After he goaded Gaal into attacking Abimelech outside of the city, Zebul shut Gaal out of the city, preventing retreat into its confines. It is difficult to determine Zebul’s fate when Abimelech later attacked and destroyed the city, but it is possible that he too met a treacherous fate.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZEBUL<\/h3>\n<p>Ruler of Shechem who served as an officer of Abimelech (Jgs 9:28-30). Zebul apparently obtained his position when Abimelech was crowned king at Shechem. When Gaal the son of Ebed incited the Shechemites to rebel against Abimelech, Zebul played an instrumental role in Abimelech’s victory. After he goaded Gaal into attacking Abimelech outside of the city, Zebul shut Gaal out of the city, preventing retreat into its confines. It is difficult to determine Zebul’s fate when Abimelech later attacked and destroyed the city, but it is possible that he too met a treacherous fate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZEBUL Ruler of Shechem who served as an officer of Abimelech (Jgs 9:28-30). Zebul apparently obtained his position when Abimelech was crowned king at Shechem. When Gaal the son of Ebed incited the Shechemites to rebel against Abimelech, Zebul played an instrumental role in Abimelech’s victory. After he goaded Gaal into attacking Abimelech outside of the city, Zebul shut Gaal out of the city, preventing retreat into its confines. It is difficult to determine Zebul’s fate when Abimelech later a...","summary_en":"ZEBUL Ruler of Shechem who served as an officer of Abimelech (Jgs 9:28-30). Zebul apparently obtained his position when Abimelech was crowned king at Shechem. When Gaal the son of Ebed incited the Shechemites to rebel against Abimelech, Zebul played an instrumental role in Abimelech’s victory. After he goaded Gaal into attacking Abimelech outside of the city, Zebul shut Gaal out of the city, preventing retreat into its confines. It is difficult to determine Zebul’s fate when Abimelech later a...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45814,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","summary_en":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73440,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","summary_en":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101066,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","summary_en":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128692,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:28","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:28","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:28<\/strong> <em>Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem:<\/em> Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • <em>Serve the true sons of Hamor:<\/em> Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, <em>the founder of Shechem<\/em> (Gen 33:18–34:31).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","summary_en":"9:28 Who is Abimelech? . . . He’s not a true son of Shechem: Gaal focused on Abimelech’s pedigree through his father, Gideon (a non-Shechemite), rather than through his mother (8:31; 9:2). • Serve the true sons of Hamor: Gaal’s pedigree apparently went back to Hamor, the founder of Shechem (Gen 33:18–34:31).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"30":[{"id":45815,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:30","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","summary_en":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73441,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:30","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","summary_en":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101067,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:30","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","summary_en":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128693,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:30","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:30","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:30-41<\/strong> The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. <em>Zebul<\/em> proposed a bold <em>morning<\/em> ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw <em>Gaal<\/em> and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the agent for cleansing the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","summary_en":"9:30-41 The second plot, like the first (9:22-25), was foiled by an informer, in this case probably an official appointed by the absent Abimelech. Zebul proposed a bold morning ambush, in which he would presumably help to draw Gaal and his followers out into the open country where they could be engaged. The plan worked. Perhaps because of his boasting and possibly in response to Zebul’s mocking challenge, Gaal and his men ventured out only to be driven from town by the faithful Zebul, the age...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"32":[{"id":38133,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"37":[{"id":9770,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Diviners’ Oak","title_en":"Diviners’ Oak","content_ro":"<h3>DIVINERS’ OAK<\/h3>\n<p>Place apparently near Shechem (Jgs 9:37); mistakenly called “the plain of Meonenim” in the <span>kjv<\/span>. The Diviners’ Oak may have been associated with those who practiced divination, hence the name.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DIVINERS’ OAK<\/h3>\n<p>Place apparently near Shechem (Jgs 9:37); mistakenly called “the plain of Meonenim” in the <span>kjv<\/span>. The Diviners’ Oak may have been associated with those who practiced divination, hence the name.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DIVINERS’ OAK Place apparently near Shechem (Jgs 9:37); mistakenly called “the plain of Meonenim” in the kjv. The Diviners’ Oak may have been associated with those who practiced divination, hence the name.","summary_en":"DIVINERS’ OAK Place apparently near Shechem (Jgs 9:37); mistakenly called “the plain of Meonenim” in the kjv. The Diviners’ Oak may have been associated with those who practiced divination, hence the name.","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25104,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plain of Meonenim*","title_en":"Plain of Meonenim*","content_ro":"<h3>MEONENIM*, Plain of<\/h3>\n<p>KJV mistranslation for the diviners’ oak, a place near Shechem, in Judges 9:37. <em>See<\/em> Diviners’ Oak.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MEONENIM*, Plain of<\/h3>\n<p>KJV mistranslation for the diviners’ oak, a place near Shechem, in Judges 9:37. <em>See<\/em> Diviners’ Oak.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MEONENIM*, Plain of KJV mistranslation for the diviners’ oak, a place near Shechem, in Judges 9:37. See Diviners’ Oak.","summary_en":"MEONENIM*, Plain of KJV mistranslation for the diviners’ oak, a place near Shechem, in Judges 9:37. See Diviners’ Oak.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27998,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Diviners’ Oak","title_en":"Diviners’ Oak","content_ro":"<h3>OAK, Diviners’<\/h3>\n<p>Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37). <em>See<\/em> Diviners’ Oak.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OAK, Diviners’<\/h3>\n<p>Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37). <em>See<\/em> Diviners’ Oak.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OAK, Diviners’ Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37). See Diviners’ Oak.","summary_en":"OAK, Diviners’ Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37). See Diviners’ Oak.","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":27999,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of Meonenim*, Oak","title_en":"of Meonenim*, Oak","content_ro":"<h3>OAK OF MEONENIM*<\/h3>\n<p>Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37, <span>asv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Diviners’ Oak.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OAK OF MEONENIM*<\/h3>\n<p>Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37, <span>asv<\/span>). <em>See<\/em> Diviners’ Oak.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OAK OF MEONENIM* Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37, asv). See Diviners’ Oak.","summary_en":"OAK OF MEONENIM* Tree near Shechem (Jgs 9:37, asv). See Diviners’ Oak.","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"41":[{"id":33370,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Rumah","title_en":"Rumah","content_ro":"<h3>RUMAH<\/h3>\n<p>Home of Pedaiah, the father of Zebidah, Jehoiakim’s mother (2 Kgs 23:36). Some identify it with Arumah, near Shechem (cf. Jgs 9:41) or with Khirbet el-Rumah in Galilee.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RUMAH<\/h3>\n<p>Home of Pedaiah, the father of Zebidah, Jehoiakim’s mother (2 Kgs 23:36). Some identify it with Arumah, near Shechem (cf. Jgs 9:41) or with Khirbet el-Rumah in Galilee.<\/p>","summary_ro":"RUMAH Home of Pedaiah, the father of Zebidah, Jehoiakim’s mother (2 Kgs 23:36). Some identify it with Arumah, near Shechem (cf. Jgs 9:41) or with Khirbet el-Rumah in Galilee.","summary_en":"RUMAH Home of Pedaiah, the father of Zebidah, Jehoiakim’s mother (2 Kgs 23:36). Some identify it with Arumah, near Shechem (cf. Jgs 9:41) or with Khirbet el-Rumah in Galilee.","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"42":[{"id":45816,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:42","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:42","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","summary_en":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73442,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:42","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:42","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","summary_en":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101068,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:42","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:42","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","summary_en":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128694,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:42","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:42","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:42<\/strong> The NLT supplies the words <em>to battle<\/em><em>,<\/em> with the understanding that the Shechemites <em>went out into the fields<\/em> to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","summary_en":"9:42 The NLT supplies the words to battle, with the understanding that the Shechemites went out into the fields to keep Abimelech from reasserting power over them. Others think that the Shechemites returned to the fields to continue the harvest (9:27), believing that Abimelech would be satisfied now that Gaal had been driven out.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"43":[{"id":38134,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45817,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","summary_en":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73443,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","summary_en":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101069,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","summary_en":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128695,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:43","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:43","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:43-45<\/strong> Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned <em>his men<\/em> on <em>the people<\/em> of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","summary_en":"9:43-45 Abimelech forfeited any claim he might have had to being an inspired leader; he turned his men on the people of Shechem, slaughtered them all, and destroyed the city.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"45":[{"id":38154,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45818,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:45","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","summary_en":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73444,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:45","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","summary_en":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101070,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:45","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","summary_en":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128696,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:45","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:45","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:45<\/strong> Scattering <em>salt<\/em> prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","summary_en":"9:45 Scattering salt prevented anything from growing and ensured destruction.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"46":[{"id":4525,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beth-Millo","title_en":"Beth-Millo","content_ro":"<h3>BETH-MILLO<\/h3>\n<p>House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BETH-MILLO<\/h3>\n<p>House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).<\/p>","summary_ro":"BETH-MILLO House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).","summary_en":"BETH-MILLO House or fortress associated with the city of Shechem mentioned in connection with the crowning of Abimelech (son of Gideon) as king there (Jgs 9:6, 20). Since the term “millo” probably means “mount” or “earthwork,” Beth-millo is often identified with the “tower of Shechem” mentioned later in the same chapter (Jgs 9:46-49).","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6730,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Citadel","title_en":"Citadel","content_ro":"<h3>CITADEL<\/h3>\n<p>A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its citadel (2 Sm 5:7-9; 1 Chr 11:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabees’ struggle for independence in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the citadel in Jerusalem often aided the party in power (1 Macc 1:29-33; 11:41-42; 13:49-51). The Fortress of Antonia, the Jerusalem citadel in the day of Jesus, fell to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CITADEL<\/h3>\n<p>A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its citadel (2 Sm 5:7-9; 1 Chr 11:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabees’ struggle for independence in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the citadel in Jerusalem often aided the party in power (1 Macc 1:29-33; 11:41-42; 13:49-51). The Fortress of Antonia, the Jerusalem citadel in the day of Jesus, fell to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CITADEL A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its cita...","summary_en":"CITADEL A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its cita...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10273,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"El-Berith*","title_en":"El-Berith*","content_ro":"<h3>EL-BERITH*<\/h3>\n<p>Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EL-BERITH*<\/h3>\n<p>Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"EL-BERITH* Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).","summary_en":"EL-BERITH* Local god worshiped at Shechem (Jgs 9:46). He is usually identified with the god Baal-berith (8:33; 9:4).","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34770,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Tower of Shechem","title_en":"Tower of Shechem","content_ro":"<h3>SHECHEM, Tower of<\/h3>\n<p>Fortress erected on the acropolis of Shechem, housing the temple of Baal-berith and situated inside the city walls. The city of Shechem was located in the hill country of the tribe of Ephraim near Mt Gerizim.<\/p>\n<p>The tower of Shechem served as the citadel to which the leaders of Shechem fled from the onslaught of Abimelech. They sought refuge in the inner chamber of the temple of Baal-berith. Abimelech, however, set the upper parts of the inner chamber on fire, killing all the men and women housed within (Jgs 9:46-49).<\/p>\n<p>The remnants of the tower of Shechem have been found within the ancient town of Shechem at Tell Bala’ta, a short distance northeast of modern Nablus in central Palestine. Modern excavations show that the tower of Shechem was used as a temple and a fortress.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHECHEM, Tower of<\/h3>\n<p>Fortress erected on the acropolis of Shechem, housing the temple of Baal-berith and situated inside the city walls. The city of Shechem was located in the hill country of the tribe of Ephraim near Mt Gerizim.<\/p>\n<p>The tower of Shechem served as the citadel to which the leaders of Shechem fled from the onslaught of Abimelech. They sought refuge in the inner chamber of the temple of Baal-berith. Abimelech, however, set the upper parts of the inner chamber on fire, killing all the men and women housed within (Jgs 9:46-49).<\/p>\n<p>The remnants of the tower of Shechem have been found within the ancient town of Shechem at Tell Bala’ta, a short distance northeast of modern Nablus in central Palestine. Modern excavations show that the tower of Shechem was used as a temple and a fortress.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHECHEM, Tower of Fortress erected on the acropolis of Shechem, housing the temple of Baal-berith and situated inside the city walls. The city of Shechem was located in the hill country of the tribe of Ephraim near Mt Gerizim. The tower of Shechem served as the citadel to which the leaders of Shechem fled from the onslaught of Abimelech. They sought refuge in the inner chamber of the temple of Baal-berith. Abimelech, however, set the upper parts of the inner chamber on fire, killing all the m...","summary_en":"SHECHEM, Tower of Fortress erected on the acropolis of Shechem, housing the temple of Baal-berith and situated inside the city walls. The city of Shechem was located in the hill country of the tribe of Ephraim near Mt Gerizim. The tower of Shechem served as the citadel to which the leaders of Shechem fled from the onslaught of Abimelech. They sought refuge in the inner chamber of the temple of Baal-berith. Abimelech, however, set the upper parts of the inner chamber on fire, killing all the m...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45819,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:46","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","summary_en":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73445,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:46","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","summary_en":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101071,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:46","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","summary_en":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128697,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:46","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:46-49<\/strong> The <em>leading citizens<\/em> (literally <em>lords<\/em>) of <em>Shechem<\/em> who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into <em>the temple of Baal-berith<\/em> only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","summary_en":"9:46-49 The leading citizens (literally lords) of Shechem who had first plotted against Abimelech now crowded into the temple of Baal-berith only to have it burn around them. This destruction has been confirmed by archaeologists at the site.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"48":[{"id":38135,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38898,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zalmon (Place)","title_en":"Zalmon (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>ZALMON (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Mountain from which Abimelech took brush to burn down the tower of Shechem (Jgs 9:48). Since the mountain obviously was close to Shechem, it tentatively has been identified with es-Sulemiyeh (the modern name for the southeastern portion of Mt Ebal) or one of its surrounding hills. Zalmon is also mentioned in connection with the defeat of Israel’s enemies in Psalm 68:14. Because of the mention of snowfall and the “mighty mountain of Bashan” in the following verse, the Septuagint and some commentators consider this Zalmon to be Mt Hermon in Lebanon. However, seasonal snowfalls also occur in the region of Mt Ebal.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZALMON (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Mountain from which Abimelech took brush to burn down the tower of Shechem (Jgs 9:48). Since the mountain obviously was close to Shechem, it tentatively has been identified with es-Sulemiyeh (the modern name for the southeastern portion of Mt Ebal) or one of its surrounding hills. Zalmon is also mentioned in connection with the defeat of Israel’s enemies in Psalm 68:14. Because of the mention of snowfall and the “mighty mountain of Bashan” in the following verse, the Septuagint and some commentators consider this Zalmon to be Mt Hermon in Lebanon. However, seasonal snowfalls also occur in the region of Mt Ebal.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZALMON (Place) Mountain from which Abimelech took brush to burn down the tower of Shechem (Jgs 9:48). Since the mountain obviously was close to Shechem, it tentatively has been identified with es-Sulemiyeh (the modern name for the southeastern portion of Mt Ebal) or one of its surrounding hills. Zalmon is also mentioned in connection with the defeat of Israel’s enemies in Psalm 68:14. Because of the mention of snowfall and the “mighty mountain of Bashan” in the following verse, the Septuagint...","summary_en":"ZALMON (Place) Mountain from which Abimelech took brush to burn down the tower of Shechem (Jgs 9:48). Since the mountain obviously was close to Shechem, it tentatively has been identified with es-Sulemiyeh (the modern name for the southeastern portion of Mt Ebal) or one of its surrounding hills. Zalmon is also mentioned in connection with the defeat of Israel’s enemies in Psalm 68:14. Because of the mention of snowfall and the “mighty mountain of Bashan” in the following verse, the Septuagint...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45820,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:48","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","summary_en":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73446,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:48","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","summary_en":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101072,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:48","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","summary_en":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128698,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:48","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:48<\/strong> <em>Mount Zalmon<\/em> is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","summary_en":"9:48 Mount Zalmon is probably another name for Mount Ebal, the mountain opposite Gerizim and next to Shechem.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"50":[{"id":6731,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Citadel","title_en":"Citadel","content_ro":"<h3>CITADEL<\/h3>\n<p>A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its citadel (2 Sm 5:7-9; 1 Chr 11:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabees’ struggle for independence in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the citadel in Jerusalem often aided the party in power (1 Macc 1:29-33; 11:41-42; 13:49-51). The Fortress of Antonia, the Jerusalem citadel in the day of Jesus, fell to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CITADEL<\/h3>\n<p>A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its citadel (2 Sm 5:7-9; 1 Chr 11:5-8).<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabees’ struggle for independence in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the citadel in Jerusalem often aided the party in power (1 Macc 1:29-33; 11:41-42; 13:49-51). The Fortress of Antonia, the Jerusalem citadel in the day of Jesus, fell to the Romans in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CITADEL A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its cita...","summary_en":"CITADEL A city’s stronghold, tower, or fortification of last resort where people sought safety during an attack. The citadel of Penuel was destroyed by Gideon after he captured two Midianite kings (Jgs 8:17). The citadel of El-berith at Shechem was burned to the ground by Abimelech and his men (9:46-49). Abimelech was killed shortly thereafter when a woman in the citadel at Thebez dropped a millstone on his head and crushed his skull (vv 50-54). David conquered Jerusalem by capturing its cita...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37156,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Thebez","title_en":"Thebez","content_ro":"<h3>THEBEZ<\/h3>\n<p>City where Abimelech was killed when “a certain woman” dropped a millstone on him (Jgs 9:50). Abimelech had attacked Thebez after burning down the Tower of Shechem but had failed to capture the fortress within the city. After being critically injured by the millstone, Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him lest it be said that he had been killed by a woman. Thebez was located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) northeast of Shechem, traditionally identified with modern Tubas.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>THEBEZ<\/h3>\n<p>City where Abimelech was killed when “a certain woman” dropped a millstone on him (Jgs 9:50). Abimelech had attacked Thebez after burning down the Tower of Shechem but had failed to capture the fortress within the city. After being critically injured by the millstone, Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him lest it be said that he had been killed by a woman. Thebez was located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) northeast of Shechem, traditionally identified with modern Tubas.<\/p>","summary_ro":"THEBEZ City where Abimelech was killed when “a certain woman” dropped a millstone on him (Jgs 9:50). Abimelech had attacked Thebez after burning down the Tower of Shechem but had failed to capture the fortress within the city. After being critically injured by the millstone, Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him lest it be said that he had been killed by a woman. Thebez was located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) northeast of Shechem, traditionally identified with modern Tubas.","summary_en":"THEBEZ City where Abimelech was killed when “a certain woman” dropped a millstone on him (Jgs 9:50). Abimelech had attacked Thebez after burning down the Tower of Shechem but had failed to capture the fortress within the city. After being critically injured by the millstone, Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him lest it be said that he had been killed by a woman. Thebez was located about 11 miles (17.7 kilometers) northeast of Shechem, traditionally identified with modern Tubas.","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38136,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\n<p>The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MethodsofWarfare\">Methods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\n<p>Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span> and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of firepower at decisive points. When the Assyrians coordinated their infantry, cavalry, and chariot corps into a powerful battle machine, smaller neighboring nations were more and more compelled to retreat behind their fortifications. They could not hope to engage the massive Assyrian army in standard combat in open terrain. No period is richer in illustrated monuments than Iron Age II; the Assyrian war reliefs present detailed illustrations of their conquests and the size of fortified cities. The few scenes depicting standard combat in open terrain show chariots charging from all directions and engaging the enemy at all stages of a battle. Other formations carry out mopping-up operations, finishing off pockets of enemy resistance remaining after the chariot charge.<\/p>\n<p>The factor of terrain was always very important. In standard combat on open terrain it became conventional to place the best troops on the right side of the line. A Greek commander, Epaminodas (d. 362 <span>BC<\/span>), introduced the variant of a slanting attack by a strengthened left wing, taking the Spartan army completely by surprise. Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander continued to surprise their enemies with variations on a plan of attack based on the phalanx.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Battle in Open Terrain: The Duel<\/h5>\n<p>During certain periods in the ancient Near East, the duel presented an alternative to standard combat. The duel was a contest between two champions who represented the contending forces. The two armies would agree in advance to abide by the outcome of the fight. The duel was meant to avoid the heavy casualties of full-scale warfare. The earliest detailed written account of this unique form of warfare occurs in the Tale of Sinuhe. A chamberlain in the royal court of the 12th dynasty, Sinuhe voluntarily went into exile and traveled to northern Palestine and Syria, where he lived among Semitic tribes. There he was challenged to a duel by a local champion, whom he defeated and whose goods he then plundered.<\/p>\n<p>Although the duel was common among other armies in subsequent periods, it was evidently unknown to Israel before the encounter between David and Goliath (1 Sm 17). The Philistine army had penetrated Judah as far as Socoh and were arrayed on one hill. Drawn up against them on an opposite hill was the army of Saul. The valley of Elah separated the two camps. The Israelites were challenged daily by the Philistine champion, Goliath, who proposed that the battle be decided through combat between two warriors. David accepted his proposal, but when he killed Goliath, the Philistines fled, unwilling to honor the terms of the prior agreement. The Israelite army then entered the contest, pursuing the Philistines and inflicting heavy casualties.<\/p>\n<h5>Assaults on Fortified Cities<\/h5>\n<p>Most cities in the ancient Near East were located at sites that could be defended against attack and that possessed economic advantages. An assault on a fortified city presented opposite problems for attacker and defender. The actions of one were a direct response to the actions of the other. Systems of defense were intended to thwart methods of attack, which in turn were designed to penetrate systems of defense.<\/p>\n<p>There were five possible ways of conquering a fortified city: penetration from above the fortifications; direct penetration through the fortifications; penetration from below the fortifications; siege; and penetration by ruse. On many occasions, a combination of two or more methods was necessary to breach the defensive network.<\/p>\n<p>The biblical narrative of the conquest of Shechem by Abimelech (Jgs 9) gives an account of an assault on a fortified city in the period of the judges (Iron Age I). When the people of Shechem and their allies rebelled against Abimelech, he retaliated by attacking the city, advancing his army of mercenaries by night and launching an assault from ambush positions at dawn (9:32-35). The men of Shechem engaged in open battle outside the city gates but were forced to retreat behind the security of the city walls. The next day Abimelech directed his assault against the city itself. Dividing his forces into three groups, he assumed direct command of one, which he committed to an attack on the city gates at the decisive moment of battle (vv 43-44). The gate was breached and the main walls seized, but the city’s surviving defenders fled to an inner citadel, the temple of Baal-berith.<\/p>\n<p>Many reliefs depict groups of soldiers defending an inner citadel after a city’s wall was breached. Archaeological excavations at Shechem confirm that its temple, like those in other Canaanite cities, was built in the form of a fortified tower, supported by stout bastions near the entrance. The tower of Shechem was thus strongly fortified and occupied only a small area, enabling its defenders to concentrate their firepower on Abimelech’s troops. Since it could not be taken by storm, Abimelech ordered his soldiers to use their battle-axes to cut brushwood, which was piled against the stronghold and set on fire (Jgs 9:48-49). All of the defenders within the tower died.<\/p>\n<p>An assault on an inner citadel was always a hazardous undertaking for an attacking army, as shown in the sequel to the capture of Shechem’s tower. Abimelech turned his attention next to the city of Thebez and followed the same plan of assault that had proved successful at Shechem. But as he was preparing to burn the door of the tower to which the defenders had fled, his skull was crushed by a piece of millstone dropped on him by a woman (Jgs 9:50-53). The incident was remembered and became proverbial for the danger of approaching too closely the walls of a fortified tower (2 Sm 11:19-21).<\/p>\n<h5>Communications and Intelligence<\/h5>\n<p>From the patriarchal period (middle Bronze period), we have detailed written information on the use of communications systems in wartime. The documents from Mari on the Euphrates provide evidence for a well-developed communications system based on signaling. Signals were flashed by torches or firebrands at night in accordance with a prearranged code. The system was widely used in Mesopotamia and elsewhere to call for immediate help when a city was under attack.<\/p>\n<p>In the late Bronze period horsemen were sometimes employed for isolated communication functions. Intelligence services played a role in planning and executing military operations. The importance of intelligence and the use of spies or scouts is stressed in the biblical accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan. Before entering the land, Moses sent men on an espionage mission. He instructed them to gather information on the topography of the land, to observe the relative strength of its inhabitants, to determine whether the land was fertile, to survey the cities and see if they were fortified, and to report on the character of the land—whether it was capable of sustaining a large population (Nm 13:17-20).<\/p>\n<p>Tactical intelligence was very important. Joshua dispatched spies to Jericho and to Ai before beginning military operations against them (Jos 2:1; 7:2). The reports he received about the offensive spirit and strength of the Canaanites enabled him to formulate an attack plan. In the period of the judges the conquest of Bethel (Jgs 1:22-26) was due directly to intelligence gathered by a reconnaissance patrol. The tribes of Joseph sent out scouts to keep the city under observation. It was strongly fortified and seemed impregnable. The scouts captured a man who emerged from the city—presumably not through the main gate, which was shut tight, but through a concealed postern or tunnel. In exchange for his own life and the safety of his family, he disclosed the location of the passage leading beneath the walls. The city was penetrated through the tunnel and captured.<\/p>\n<h5>Attack and Penetration: The Breach<\/h5>\n<p>Direct penetration through the fortifications of an ancient city meant breaching the gate or the main walls by using hammers, axes, pikes, spears, swords, or a battering ram. Illustrated monuments and written documents indicate that early in the middle Bronze period fortified cities were being attacked with battering rams. The earliest known illustration of a ram appears in a siege scene in the wall paintings from Beni Hasan (20th century <span>BC<\/span>). The ram pictured is a relatively simple device, consisting of a hutlike structure with a slightly pointed roof, which could be moved near a fortress with the help of two parallel crossbars. The structure provided cover for two or three soldiers who operated by hand a very long pole with a sharp tip, presumably of metal.<\/p>\n<p>The Mari documents provide information for the period 200 years later. They mention the effectiveness of battering rams constructed largely of wood. Although very heavy, the siege weapon could be moved over long distances. One document speaks of the use of a wagon drawn by draft animals and of a boat to transport a battering ram to the site of a besieged city.<\/p>\n<p>Moving a battering ram into position always exposed the demolition unit to heavy fire from defenders on the walls above them. Its heaviness made it cumbersome to move. Moreover, the ground adjacent to the walls was usually rough, rocky, and steep. When the chosen point of penetration was a section of the wall, an assault force had to construct an earthen ramp, occasionally strengthened on the top surface and sides with wooden planks or stones. The ramp provided a track along which the battering ram could be moved from the foot of the slope to the outer wall. Once moved into operational position, the ram had to be braked to prevent it from rolling back. The building of such a ramp was evidently necessary in Joab’s campaign against the fortified city of Abel in Beth-maacah (2 Sm 20:15). The biblical account indicates that some sort of battering ram was in use in Israel under King David during the early monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest Assyrian reliefs show that protection of the penetration units was a major consideration. High, mobile assault towers constructed of wood operated in tandem with a battering ram. Such towers, moved into position near a breach operation and manned by archers, provided covering fire directed against the defenders on the wall. Siege towers neutralized the defenders’ advantage in firepower and drew fire away from the crew engaged in breaching the walls.<\/p>\n<p>The details of the Assyrian reliefs make it possible to visualize clearly the fate of Jerusalem, as announced to the prophet Ezekiel (Ez 4:1-3; 21:22). The gate was the focal point of attack because it was the weakest point in the wall. Moreover, the path leading up to the gate made construction of a special ramp unnecessary. In the demolition of a gate, swords were sometimes used to pry the doors loose and to tear down hinges. Wooden doors unprotected by metal were often set on fire.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 <span>BC<\/span> the Roman commander Pompey brought up battering rams from Tyre against the defenders of Jerusalem, and with them penetrated the fortified wall that enclosed the temple. The siege machine shown on Trajan’s column had a beam with an iron head shaped like a ram. It was moved up to a wall in a frame protected by a wooden roof covered with clay or hides. A variation equipped for boring into a wall was used by Titus when besieging Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The battering ram was not the only device used to effect a breach in a wall. Troops trained as sappers would tear down a section of the wall by using sharp-headed levers (pikes, swords, spears) or even sledgehammers (cf. Ez 26:8-9). In Ashurnasirpal’s army such men were issued full-length coats of mail to cover their whole bodies. Under later Assyrian kings, they were protected by both round and rectangular shields, which they carried on their backs when engaged in demolition. Later, Ashurbanipal relied exclusively on such sappers for direct penetration of a fortified city. He designed for their protection a huge shield, the curved head of which could be propped against the wall, screening the sapper from missiles while he worked beneath it.<\/p>\n<h5>Scaling the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century <span>BC<\/span>) provides the earliest known representation of siege activities. It shows the Egyptians raising a scaling ladder against the walls of a fortified city. By the time of Sargon, the thickness of walls was increased considerably, which permitted construction of much higher walls, more resistant to scaling. Such solid, massive walls also tended to blunt the effectiveness of a battering ram. Sargon, and especially his successor Ashurbanipal, responded by constructing longer scaling ladders, some of which could reach a height of from 25 to 30 feet (7.6 to 9.1 meters), judging from the number of rungs.<\/p>\n<h5>Penetration beneath the Walls<\/h5>\n<p>A tunneling operation could be started beyond the range of any weapons at the disposal of the defenders. Once underground, the penetration unit was shielded from enemy fire. The tunneling could be accomplished under cover of night, so that the element of surprise could be exploited to the maximum. It was, however, a lengthy process requiring considerable technical skill. Moreover, if the operation was detected by the defenders before its completion, they could destroy the penetration unit as it emerged from the tunnel. Attempts to penetrate fortified cities by tunneling beneath the walls was a characteristic feature of warfare in Iron Age II. That is confirmed by reliefs, written documents, and archaeological excavation of sites dating to this period, where the remains of attack tunnels have been discovered.<\/p>\n<h5>Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Particularly when a walled city was situated on a high hill, an extended siege provided an alternate method of conquering it. By encircling the city and preventing aid or supplies from reaching its defenders, the attacking army could starve the inhabitants out. That procedure minimized the element of risk for the attacking army. Its success depended upon their capacity to prevent outside assistance from reaching the city and the defenders from leaving it. An army would generally resort to siege when a city’s fortifications were too powerful for direct penetration. The siege of Samaria by the Assyrians lasted for three years (2 Kgs 18:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The peculiar conditions of siege produced the catapult, a major innovation of Greek artillery and a logical improvement on the bow and the sling. Designed originally as a strengthened bow mounted on a stand and used to fire arrows only, it was introduced around 400 <span>BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\n<p>In the course of time the instrument was improved. The perfect weapon, called the torsion catapult, derived its power from many tightly twisted strands of elastic material, frequently supplied by women’s hair, which could be tightened with a windlass and then released suddenly. Firing arrows, large stones, or fire-baskets with an effective range of 200 yards (182.9 meters), a catapult could clear a wall of its defenders while a battering ram breached it or a boarding party attacked from a mobile tower.<\/p>\n<p>For those in a besieged city, the critical problems were food and water supplies. The horror of famine is stressed in the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by the Syrian Ben-hadad in the days of the prophet Elisha. On that occasion women were reduced to eating their children (2 Kgs 6:26-29). A besieging army would do everything in its power to aggravate such conditions. In one of the siege reliefs of Ashurnasirpal II, a defender has lowered a bucket from the wall to draw water from a stream below; an Assyrian soldier is shown cutting the rope with his dagger.<\/p>\n<h5>Ruses and Stratagems<\/h5>\n<p>Various ruses and stratagems could draw the defenders out of a city or infiltrate troops into the city. If a small force could enter a city by a cunning stratagem, it could overpower the guards and open the city gates to an attacking army. A city’s fortifications were of little value once an enemy had entered the city. Moreover, penetrating a city’s defenses at any one point frequently caused the entire defense system to collapse. The story of the Trojan horse is probably the most celebrated account of a stratagem circumventing the defense of a strongly fortified ancient city.<\/p>\n<p>In the biblical account of the siege of Samaria by Ben-hadad, a sudden lifting of the Syrian siege led Joram, the king of Israel, to suspect a ruse. He refused to believe the report of four lepers that the Syrians had gone, leaving behind large food supplies (2 Kgs 7:12). That was the same kind of tactic that Joshua had employed at Ai (Jos 8:3-8).<\/p>\n<p>On other occasions, powerful armies sought to break down resistance by psychological warfare, as in the unsuccessful attempt by Sennacherib to capture Jerusalem in the time of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18–19). The dialogue between the Assyrian general and Hezekiah’s delegates reveals that the Assyrian was trying to shake the confidence of the city’s defenders.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a type of ruse used to trap and destroy an enemy at a moment when he was least able to counter a sudden, unexpected blow. Its effectiveness depended almost entirely on the element of surprise. By taking advantage of good intelligence, knowledge of the terrain, and the cover of night, a small force could stage a devastating ambush against vastly superior numbers.<\/p>\n<p>The ambush was a standard method of combat during the period of the conquest of Canaan. The fall of Ai, for example, was due directly to the tactical success of an ambush (Jos 8:1-23). Under cover of night, Joshua was able to move a large force to a concealed position behind the city. He then led the remainder of the Israelite army to the edge of a valley north of the fortified city, giving the appearance of a planned assault on the city. The diversion, as calculated, drew the main force of Ai away from the city to engage Israel on the plain of Arabah. When the Israelites fell back, appearing to be badly beaten, the remaining defenders of the city were summoned to pursue Joshua’s fleeing army. With the city left undefended, the main Israelite strike force rose from its ambush position, poured into the city, and set it on fire. Too late, the men of Ai saw the smoke from their burning city and realized the stratagem. Joshua’s army turned to counterattack their pursuers, who found themselves trapped between two bodies of Israelite forces. Assaulted from both front and rear, the king of Ai’s army was annihilated, victim of an effectively laid ambush.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FortificationsandDefense\">Fortifications and Defense<\/p>\n<p>The earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 <span>BC<\/span>, were discovered in 1954 at Jericho. They were impressive in conception and construction. The core of the defense system was a wall, part of which, bordering the western edge of the ancient city, was still standing to a height of 21 feet (6.4 meters). Further excavation uncovered a large moat that had been carved out of solid rock at the base of the wall, 27 feet (8.2 meters) wide and 9 feet (2.7 meters) deep. How that feat was accomplished when the only tools assumed to have been available were made of stone is a complete mystery. A third component of Jericho’s defense system was a huge stone circular tower 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, once evidently attached to the inner side of the western part of the wall. The exact purpose of the tower has not yet been determined, but Neolithic Jericho provides the earliest evidence of a fortified city supported by a wall, tower, and moat.<\/p>\n<p>By the middle Bronze period, there were four components in a standard defense system: a moat, an advance (outer) wall, the main (inner) wall, and a well-fortified gate structure. The moat, advance wall, and subsidiary fortifications protecting the steep slope and lower portion of the main wall were intended to prevent breaching by a battering ram.<\/p>\n<h5>City Walls<\/h5>\n<p>Erection of a simple wall could halt a hostile advance only temporarily, since walls could be scaled or breached. Walls therefore provided a firing platform so defenders could repel attacks. The wall system consisted of three principal components: the wall itself, constituting the barrier; an upper structure, which provided the firing platform and cover for the defenders; and a series of obstacles and traps erected in front of the wall to keep archers at a distance and to prevent operation of a battering ram.<\/p>\n<p>The battlement—a parapet built along the outer top edge of the wall—provided the defenders with a measure of security, freedom for mobility, and openings through which fire could be directed. From a distance the square notches looked like a row of teeth with gaps between them. The teeth, called merlons, provided a protective barrier against hostile missiles. The gaps, called embrasures or crenels, supplied openings through which the defenders could discharge their weapons. Special towers protruded from the outer face of the wall, spaced at a distance no greater than the double range of a bow. Such towers enabled the defenders to fire at troops who managed to reach the walls. One way of protecting the main wall was to construct an outer or advance wall that could be breached or climbed only under heavy fire from defending units on the battlements of the main wall. Another method was to dig a wide, deep moat around the base of the main wall. A moat kept the enemy from using a battering ram unless they could bridge the moat or fill it up at certain points, under concentrated fire from the defenders.<\/p>\n<p>Casemate fortifications, introduced in the middle Bronze period, were developed from double walls built of dressed stones. The space between the walls was divided into chambers, or casemates, used for storage or dwellings. The Hittite casemate system, introduced into Palestine at least as early as the time of Saul, was widely adopted in Syria and Palestine. A fine example has been discovered at Gibeah, where Saul’s citadel was located, dating to the end of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>. The overall thickness of the double walls, including the casemates, reaches 15 feet (4.6 meters). The same type of construction has been found in excavations of three Solomonic cities—Hazor, Gezer, and Megiddo (cf. 1 Kgs 9:15)—where the casemate walls have an overall thickness of 18 feet (5.5 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Although the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel were not noted for technical advancements in offensive warfare, a number of their kings worked at improving fortifications and means of defense. Uzziah was especially remembered for his accomplishments in defensive warfare. Along with other measures, “he produced machines mounted on the walls of Jerusalem, designed by brilliant men to shoot arrows and hurl stones from the towers and the corners of the wall” (2 Chr 26:15, <span>nlt<\/span>). Those “machines” were special protective structures built to facilitate the task of the archers and to permit huge stones to be dropped on the heads of assaulting troops.<\/p>\n<h5>Gate<\/h5>\n<p>It was inevitable that the gate would be the focus of action in any assault on a fortified city. City gates were therefore designed to expose an attacking army to the greatest risk while providing maximum security to the defenders. The road approaching a city on a hill would wind up the slope, climbing obliquely to the left or the right. Such roads were usually laid out to reach the gate from the right, so an attacker would have to expose the right side of his body to the defenders on the wall. Since he carried his shield in his left hand, that made him more vulnerable.<\/p>\n<p>To prevent the heavy wooden doors of the gate from being set on fire, they were usually plated with metal. A gate wide enough for chariots required double doors, making the line at the center where the two doors met the weakest point in the barrier. Double doors were therefore fitted with huge bolts and fortified with a heavy beam running across the back of both door panels and held in place by sockets set in the doorposts.<\/p>\n<p>Another component in the defense complex at a gate consisted of towers erected on either side of the gate and protruding from the outer face of the wall. Enemy soldiers trying to smash the doors with axes or set them on fire with torches were thus exposed to heavy flanking fire from defensive units on the towers. From a roof over the gate having a balcony, concentrated firepower could be poured down on attackers’ heads. The addition of such auxiliary structures transformed a gate into a small fortress.<\/p>\n<h5>Inner Citadel<\/h5>\n<p>A major weakness of a city’s walls and gate was the magnitude of the circumference. An average-size city might have a perimeter of half a mile (.8 kilometer); a larger city, a perimeter of over a mile (1.6 kilometers). Yet the entire wall had to be defended against breaching, scaling, or tunneling. An attacking army would use diversionary tactics to keep defenders dispersed along the entire perimeter but concentrate their primary assault at one point in the wall. Once the wall was breached, perimeter fortifications served no further defensive purpose. Therefore, internal walls were often added to subdivide a city into several sections, each capable of independent defense. Also, on the highest point of land within the city a citadel would be constructed as a self-contained defensive unit.<\/p>\n<p>The earliest examples of such fortifications, called migdols, are found in the late Bronze Age. They were originally small citadels built to guard important military targets such as sources of water, strategic routes, cultivated farmlands, or frontiers. A migdol of that type was discovered in Israel, not far from Ashdod, in 1960. It was square in plan, with rectangular bastions, and was two stories high, just like structures depicted in Egyptian reliefs from the same period. The same design was used to fortify temples inside of cities. Such fortified temples served as places of refuge and as a city’s final defense once its walls had been breached (cf. Jgs 9:45-51).<\/p>\n<p>In a later period an inner citadel could embrace a complex consisting of the fortified palace of the governor, dwellings of his chief ministers, and sometimes the temple. Such citadels resembled fortified cities, possessing a main wall, a gateway, an outer wall, and occasionally a moat. Being small in area and heavily fortified, citadels could be defended in a final effort by the governor and remaining inhabitants. Presumably Zimri could have held out against Omri’s army for an extended period in the citadel of Tirzah, had he not committed suicide by setting it on fire (1 Kgs 16:17-18).<\/p>\n<h5>Water Supply under Siege<\/h5>\n<p>Unless provision was made to keep a city’s inhabitants supplied with food and water during a protracted siege, no defense system could be effective. Several Judean kings made efforts to solve the food-storage problem. Rehoboam, for example, fortified a number of cities located on the western, eastern, and southern borders of his kingdom and made them centers for the storage of food, oil, and wine (2 Chr 11:5-11).<\/p>\n<p>Storage of food was easier than storage of water. Cisterns built to collect rainwater were a partial answer, but cisterns often ran dry, particularly in times of drought. Cities were sometimes built on the banks of a stream or river, using the stream as part of the city’s defense system. But for a city built on a hill, the source of water might be a spring located at the foot of the slope and outside the city walls. Sometimes the mouth of the spring could be blocked and its location concealed from the enemy while still allowing access by the inhabitants. At Megiddo a vertical shaft 100 feet (274.3 meters) deep was connected by a horizontal tunnel about 200 feet (548.6 meters) long to the water supply at the western end of the city, beyond the fortifications. The work was undertaken in the time of either Solomon or Ahab.<\/p>\n<p>The most celebrated measures to guarantee a supply of fresh water in a time of siege were those taken by Hezekiah at Jerusalem. That engineering achievement is recalled in all the summaries of his reign, both in the Bible and in the “Praise of Famous Men” in the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus (2 Kgs 20:20; 2 Chr 32:30; Ecclus 48:17). The prodigious feat commemorated in those references was the sealing of the spring of Gihon and the cutting of an 1,800-foot (548.6-meter) channel through solid rock in order to bring water into a reservoir in the city. How it was accomplished was reported by Hezekiah himself in the famous Siloam inscription. Two crews, working with hammers, wedges, and pickaxes, began at opposite ends. The crew that began at the spring was able to take advantage of the older tunnel (cf. Is 22:11). They turned due south, in the direction of the city. The other crew, starting from the reservoir, began in a northeasterly direction. They then turned southeast until they reached the north-south line followed by the crew tunneling from the spring, when they turned due north to meet them. The two crews almost passed each other, being about five feet (1.5 meters) apart, but a shout from one was heard through a crevice in the rock by the other. Both parties turned sharply right, and the tunnel was completed. Hezekiah’s precautionary step, taken before Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, helps to explain why the Assyrians were unable to subdue Jerusalem by the siege tactics that had earlier subdued Samaria in the time of Sargon.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewMilitaryOrganization\">Hebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\n<p>In their exodus from Egypt the Israelites were organized by tribes and divisions. That systematic arrangement for their trek through the wilderness provided a precedent for military organization. After the sojourn at Mt Sinai, the 12 tribes were divided into divisions or army corps, and certain grades in military rank began to appear. The “officers of the army” (Nm 31:14) had command over units of 1,000 or 100 men, which suggests that the tribal army was divided into decimal units. At a later period there is reference to units of 1,000 (the division), 100 (the company), 50 (the platoon), and 10 (the section). Except for the Levites, who were assigned as a tribe to the care of the tabernacle (Nm 2:33), men from 20 years of age who were physically able to fight were assigned to a unit in the tribal army. Certain individuals, however, were exempted from military service (cf. Dt 20:5-9; 24:5; Jgs 7:3).<\/p>\n<p>Until after the conquest of Canaan, the tribal army was essentially a militia recruited in an emergency. Internal organization of the militia was the responsibility of the tribe; each clan and family sent their quota of warriors when summoned to battle by tribal leaders. Because the clan formed the basic unit, recruits were under the command of their own leaders. David’s brothers, for example, served in a division composed of the fighting men from their clan under the command of a captain (1 Sm 17:18; 18:13). When the emergency passed, the militia was disbanded and the soldiers returned to their home districts.<\/p>\n<p>Because the land was divided among the tribes, no tribal or clan leader before Saul commanded the entire tribal confederation (cf. 1 Sm 11:1-11). In fact, tribal jealousies and rivalries threatened national solidarity and jeopardized united action even in a critical period. On some occasions, however, the severity of a crisis caused the armies of the various tribes to unite in common action. The multitribal armies were divided into companies of 1,000, 100, and 50, and still further into families under appointed officers. There is evidence of organization into units according to weaponry (1 Chr 12:24-38). Benjamin’s tribe specialized in the bow and sling. The tribes of Gad, Judah, and Naphtali were expert with the spear and shield.<\/p>\n<p>Provisioning the tribal army was the responsibility of each tribe (Jgs 20:9-10). One out of every ten soldiers was appointed to secure food for the others, either from wealthy landowners (cf. 1 Sm 25) or from the natural resources of the land. In that early stage of military organization, a soldier’s pay generally consisted only of supplies and a portion of the spoils of battle (cf. 30:21-25).<\/p>\n<h5>Professional Army<\/h5>\n<p>Not until the time of the united monarchy did Israel have a regular army. Transition from a people’s militia to a professional army took place under Saul, whose reign changed the tribal confederacy into a monarchy (1 Sm 13:2). Philistine harassment of Israel encouraged establishment of a strong standing army. The army, however, was not large; it consisted of 3,000 men organized in three formations of 1,000 each (1 Sm 13:2; 24:2). Pay for those career soldiers was sometimes in the form of a land grant (8:14) as well as a share of booty. In the organization of Saul’s army, Abner, Jonathan, and David were given particular responsibilities. Abner was named commander of the army (17:55) and was probably also given direct command of one of the divisions. David’s band of valorous men, “the thirty,” provided the leadership core for his own military organization when he became king.<\/p>\n<p>David continued the practice of maintaining a professional army. But he also developed a national militia of 12 regiments, each being called up for duty for one month of the year under professional officers (1 Chr 27:1-15). Each regiment, recruited across tribal lines, consisted of 24,000 soldiers. David’s innovation provided him with a large reserve force that could be mustered for war in times of emergency. The reserves, and presumably the professional army as well, were organized into units of 1,000, 100, 50, and 10. Joab, a specialist in siege warfare (2 Sm 20:15), commanded the professional army, and Amasa was over the citizens’ militia. David, however, remained commander-in-chief of the military organization.<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite group in King David’s professional army was an outgrowth of the small band of fighting men who had served with him during the period of conflict with Saul. That veteran group consisted of David’s family and clansmen, and others who felt themselves oppressed by the central authority under Saul (1 Sm 22:1-2). It ranged in size between 400 and 600 men (1 Sm 22:2; 23:13; 27:2). The presence of mercenaries in David’s army is clearly recorded. Uriah the Hittite and Ittai of Gath are conspicuous examples, along with many career soldiers of Philistine origin, such as the Cherethites and the Pelethites under Benaiah (2 Sm 8:18; 15:19-22; 23:22-23).<\/p>\n<p>The Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 <span>BC<\/span>, after which it was considered too costly. The oppressive cost of maintaining a professional army, financed by burdensome taxes and forced labor, was in fact a major factor contributing to the disruption of the monarchy after Solomon’s death (cf. 1 Kgs 10:26-29; 12:4-19). After Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the southern kingdom of Judah depended entirely on a citizens’ militia for its defense. It is commonly held that the northern kingdom of Israel did not employ a professional army, but it is evident that King Ahab used at least some mercenary soldiers in his defense against Ben-hadad of Syria (1 Kgs 20:15-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","summary_en":"WARFARE The means by which one nation seeks to impose its will upon another by force. An index to the importance of warfare in antiquity is provided by the amount of technical skill directed to perfecting devices for destruction and defense. Methods of Warfare Standard Combat Cavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium BC and the beginning of the first. The cavalry charge provided a shock force to the great armies, and the cavalry’s mobility permitted concentration of ...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45821,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:50","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","summary_en":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73447,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:50","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","summary_en":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101073,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:50","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","summary_en":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128699,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:50","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:50<\/strong> <em>Thebez<\/em> was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","summary_en":"9:50 Thebez was a stronghold a few miles northeast of Shechem. Abimelech was probably reclaiming Thebez, but he might have been attempting an initial takeover.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"53":[{"id":212,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abimelech","title_en":"Abimelech","content_ro":"<h3>ABIMELECH<\/h3>\n<p>Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites.<\/p>\n<p>1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a married woman, so she was restored to her husband. The same Abimelech and Abraham later entered into a treaty to clarify water rights in the Negev Desert at Beersheba (Gn 21:22-34).<\/p>\n<li>2. King of Gerar in Isaac’s time. Isaac, too, passed off his wife, Rebekah, as his sister at Gerar. Abimelech, perhaps remembering the near judgment on his predecessor, acted decisively to protect Rebekah’s integrity. He proclaimed a death penalty on any who touched her or her husband (Gn 26:1-11). Abimelech asked Isaac to leave Philistine territory because of overcrowding and continuing dispute over water (Gn 26:12-22). Eventually, at Beersheba, Isaac and Abimelech ended their hostility by renewing the treaty made by Abraham and the earlier Abimelech (Gn 26:26-33).<\/li>\n<li>3. Gideon’s son by a concubine in Shechem (Jgs 8:31). After his father’s death, Abimelech conspired with his mother’s family to assassinate his 70 half brothers. Only one of them, Jotham, escaped (Jgs 9:1-5). In Abimelech’s third year of rule, he cruelly suppressed a rebellion (Jgs 9:22-49). Eventually his skull was crushed by a millstone thrown down by a woman on a tower. Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him with a sword so that no one could say he had been killed by a woman (Jgs 9:53-57).<\/li>\n<li>4. Achish, king of the Philistine city of Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15).<\/li>\n<li>5. Abiathar’s son, a priest associated with Zadok in David’s time (1 Chr 18:16).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ABIMELECH<\/h3>\n<p>Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites.<\/p>\n<p>1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a married woman, so she was restored to her husband. The same Abimelech and Abraham later entered into a treaty to clarify water rights in the Negev Desert at Beersheba (Gn 21:22-34).<\/p>\n<li>2. King of Gerar in Isaac’s time. Isaac, too, passed off his wife, Rebekah, as his sister at Gerar. Abimelech, perhaps remembering the near judgment on his predecessor, acted decisively to protect Rebekah’s integrity. He proclaimed a death penalty on any who touched her or her husband (Gn 26:1-11). Abimelech asked Isaac to leave Philistine territory because of overcrowding and continuing dispute over water (Gn 26:12-22). Eventually, at Beersheba, Isaac and Abimelech ended their hostility by renewing the treaty made by Abraham and the earlier Abimelech (Gn 26:26-33).<\/li>\n<li>3. Gideon’s son by a concubine in Shechem (Jgs 8:31). After his father’s death, Abimelech conspired with his mother’s family to assassinate his 70 half brothers. Only one of them, Jotham, escaped (Jgs 9:1-5). In Abimelech’s third year of rule, he cruelly suppressed a rebellion (Jgs 9:22-49). Eventually his skull was crushed by a millstone thrown down by a woman on a tower. Abimelech ordered his armor bearer to kill him with a sword so that no one could say he had been killed by a woman (Jgs 9:53-57).<\/li>\n<li>4. Achish, king of the Philistine city of Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15).<\/li>\n<li>5. Abiathar’s son, a priest associated with Zadok in David’s time (1 Chr 18:16).<\/li>","summary_ro":"ABIMELECH Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites. 1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a ma...","summary_en":"ABIMELECH Royal title for Philistine rulers, similar to the designation “pharaoh” among the Egyptians and “agag” among the Amalekites. 1. King of Gerar in Abraham’s time. At Gerar, a city a few miles south of Gaza, Abraham presented his wife as his sister out of fear for his life (Gn 20:1-18), as he had once done in Egypt (Gn 12:10-20). Because of this, Sarah was taken into Abimelech’s harem. But Abimelech was warned by God in a dream not to come near her on pain of death because she was a ma...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15570,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Head","title_en":"Head","content_ro":"<h3>HEAD<\/h3>\n<p>The uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for <em>head<\/em> is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority.<\/p>\n<p>To raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mountain peaks (Gn 8:5), the tops of buildings (Gn 11:4) or trees (2 Sm 5:24), and river sources (Gn 2:10). The term was commonly used to designate positions of political, military, or familiar authority. In this sense the “head” exercised control over all those subjected to him (Jgs 10:18; 1 Sm 15:17; Ps 18:43; Is 7:8-9; Jer 31:7; Hos 1:11). David was called the “keeper of mine head” (<span>kjv<\/span>) when he served as the bodyguard of Achish (1 Sm 28:2; cf. Jgs 9:53; Ps 68:21).<\/p>\n<p>Greek philosophers used the image of the body to represent the universe. The head of this body—called Zeus or Reason—was considered responsible for the creation and sustenance of the remaining members (celestial beings, humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects). The universe, or “body,” owed its existence to the “head.”<\/p>\n<p>Between 460 <span>BC<\/span> (the date usually ascribed to the first writings of Hippocrates) and <span>AD<\/span> 200 (the death of Galen, who developed Hippocrates’ findings), Greek medical science came to understand the head as the seat of intelligence. The body was able to operate efficiently only because the brain was capable of interpreting data received from the body (eyes, ears, skin, and so on), and because it was able to send out appropriate impulses to the various members of the body, based upon the data received. The ability of the brain to interpret and direct made the existence of the body completely dependent upon it.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, the term refers to the actual human head (Mt 5:36; 6:17; 14:8; 26:7; Mk 6:27; 14:3; Lk 7:46; Jn 13:9; 20:7), to apocalyptic beings (Rv 1:14; 4:4; 12:1), and to animals (Rv 9:7, 17, 19; 12:3). Furthermore, it appears in such expressions as “to heap coals of fire upon the head,” meaning to return good for evil (Rom 12:20; cf. Mt 5:44); to “shear” or “anoint the head” expressing a vow (Acts 21:24); and “to lay down the head,” meaning to sleep (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul drew from the OT metaphorical understanding of the term to express the headship of God over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman (1 Cor 11:3-16; cf. Eph 5:23). In the light of these relationships, Paul encouraged women at Corinth to wear veils in worship. The veil gave a woman the authority to worship as an equal with men before God. The term is used again with the meaning “authority” to express the lordship of Christ over the universe (Eph 1:21-22; Col 2:10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul used the image of the head and body to express the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph 4:15; 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27). In addition to the OT sense, the contributions of medical science in Paul’s day may provide insight into this image, for Christ is not only the dominant ruler over the church but also the dynamic force that provides its direction and unity. The ability of the church to exist and the focal point of its activity are rooted in the work of its “head,” Jesus Christ. In this light, various modern exegetes have argued that headship does not mean “authority” as much as it means “source,” as in the term “fountainhead.” Thus, he who is the head is the source, the supplier. These interpreters see God as being Christ’s supplier, and Christ being the church’s supplier, and man being woman’s supplier.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HEAD<\/h3>\n<p>The uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for <em>head<\/em> is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority.<\/p>\n<p>To raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mountain peaks (Gn 8:5), the tops of buildings (Gn 11:4) or trees (2 Sm 5:24), and river sources (Gn 2:10). The term was commonly used to designate positions of political, military, or familiar authority. In this sense the “head” exercised control over all those subjected to him (Jgs 10:18; 1 Sm 15:17; Ps 18:43; Is 7:8-9; Jer 31:7; Hos 1:11). David was called the “keeper of mine head” (<span>kjv<\/span>) when he served as the bodyguard of Achish (1 Sm 28:2; cf. Jgs 9:53; Ps 68:21).<\/p>\n<p>Greek philosophers used the image of the body to represent the universe. The head of this body—called Zeus or Reason—was considered responsible for the creation and sustenance of the remaining members (celestial beings, humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects). The universe, or “body,” owed its existence to the “head.”<\/p>\n<p>Between 460 <span>BC<\/span> (the date usually ascribed to the first writings of Hippocrates) and <span>AD<\/span> 200 (the death of Galen, who developed Hippocrates’ findings), Greek medical science came to understand the head as the seat of intelligence. The body was able to operate efficiently only because the brain was capable of interpreting data received from the body (eyes, ears, skin, and so on), and because it was able to send out appropriate impulses to the various members of the body, based upon the data received. The ability of the brain to interpret and direct made the existence of the body completely dependent upon it.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT, the term refers to the actual human head (Mt 5:36; 6:17; 14:8; 26:7; Mk 6:27; 14:3; Lk 7:46; Jn 13:9; 20:7), to apocalyptic beings (Rv 1:14; 4:4; 12:1), and to animals (Rv 9:7, 17, 19; 12:3). Furthermore, it appears in such expressions as “to heap coals of fire upon the head,” meaning to return good for evil (Rom 12:20; cf. Mt 5:44); to “shear” or “anoint the head” expressing a vow (Acts 21:24); and “to lay down the head,” meaning to sleep (Mt 8:20; Lk 9:58).<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul drew from the OT metaphorical understanding of the term to express the headship of God over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman (1 Cor 11:3-16; cf. Eph 5:23). In the light of these relationships, Paul encouraged women at Corinth to wear veils in worship. The veil gave a woman the authority to worship as an equal with men before God. The term is used again with the meaning “authority” to express the lordship of Christ over the universe (Eph 1:21-22; Col 2:10).<\/p>\n<p>Paul used the image of the head and body to express the relationship between Christ and his church (Eph 4:15; 5:23; cf. 1 Cor 12:12-27). In addition to the OT sense, the contributions of medical science in Paul’s day may provide insight into this image, for Christ is not only the dominant ruler over the church but also the dynamic force that provides its direction and unity. The ability of the church to exist and the focal point of its activity are rooted in the work of its “head,” Jesus Christ. In this light, various modern exegetes have argued that headship does not mean “authority” as much as it means “source,” as in the term “fountainhead.” Thus, he who is the head is the source, the supplier. These interpreters see God as being Christ’s supplier, and Christ being the church’s supplier, and man being woman’s supplier.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HEAD The uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for head is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority. To raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mounta...","summary_en":"HEAD The uppermost portion of the body, containing the brain, major sense organs, and the mouth. It appears many times in the Bible as a physical description. The Hebrew term for head is also used figuratively in the Old Testament. Frequently, it designates prominence or authority. To raise one’s head was considered an act of pride (Ps 140:9) or honor (Gn 40:20; Pss 3:3; 27:6). Bowing the head signified humility (Is 58:5) or sadness (Lam 2:10). The Hebrew word is used metaphorically of mounta...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25742,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mill","title_en":"Mill","content_ro":"<h3>MILL<\/h3>\n<p>Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 <span>BC<\/span>) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and the upper one, which was moved over the surface of the lower one under pressure, to grind the grain into flour. The Hebrew term for “mill” is grammatically a dual—that is, it refers to two elements.<\/p>\n\n<p>The earliest mill, the saddle quern, consisted of a rough base stone, slightly concave, and a convex rubbing stone. The base stone varied from 18 to 30 inches (45.7 to 76.2 centimeters) across with one end a little thicker than the other. It was known in Hebrew as “the underneath portion” (Jb 41:24). The upper stone, called the “rider portion” (Jgs 9:53; 2 Sm 11:21), varied from 6 to 15 inches (15.2 to 38.1 centimeters) in length and was flat on one side and convex on the other. It could be held easily in the hand. Grinding was done by pushing the upper stone backward and forward over the grain, which lay on the lower stone. Only a small quantity of grain could be ground at one time using this method (Gn 18:6).<\/p>\n<p>A second type of handmill consisted of two round stones. The lower one could be either convex or concave on top and the upper one was either concave or convex so as to fit nearly over the lower stone. Some examples of this type of mill have a funnel-shaped hole in the center of the top stone through which grain was poured. The upper mill was turned on the lower one by means of a wooden peg inserted on its outside edge. As the grain was crushed, it escaped along the edges of the upper stone. Commonly the stone used was black basalt because its rough and porous surface provided good cutting edges. The normal type of handmill could be operated by one person, but sometimes two persons were required (Mt 24:41).<\/p>\n<p>So important was the handmill in the life of the people that it was prohibited by law to take a man’s millstone as a pledge against the payment of a debt, for this would deprive his family of the means of making flour for bread (Dt 24:6). These stones were heavy enough to kill a man when thrown on his head, as in the case of Abimelech (Jgs 9:53; cf. 2 Sm 11:21).<\/p>\n<p>Normally, the grinding of grain was the task of servants (Ex 11:5) or of women (Is 47:2). The noise of grinding could be heard each day in every village in Palestine. When that sound ceased, the village had come to an end (Jer 25:10).<\/p>\n<p>There seems to have been larger community mills that required animal power. A heavy round stone, perhaps four to five feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) in diameter, was rolled on its edge by means of a pole through its center. This pole rotated around a vertical post in much the same way as one finds in some Eastern lands even today. It may have been a large mill of this type that Samson was forced to use to grind grain for the Philistines (Jgs 16:21).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Bread; Agriculture.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MILL<\/h3>\n<p>Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 <span>BC<\/span>) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and the upper one, which was moved over the surface of the lower one under pressure, to grind the grain into flour. The Hebrew term for “mill” is grammatically a dual—that is, it refers to two elements.<\/p>\n\n<p>The earliest mill, the saddle quern, consisted of a rough base stone, slightly concave, and a convex rubbing stone. The base stone varied from 18 to 30 inches (45.7 to 76.2 centimeters) across with one end a little thicker than the other. It was known in Hebrew as “the underneath portion” (Jb 41:24). The upper stone, called the “rider portion” (Jgs 9:53; 2 Sm 11:21), varied from 6 to 15 inches (15.2 to 38.1 centimeters) in length and was flat on one side and convex on the other. It could be held easily in the hand. Grinding was done by pushing the upper stone backward and forward over the grain, which lay on the lower stone. Only a small quantity of grain could be ground at one time using this method (Gn 18:6).<\/p>\n<p>A second type of handmill consisted of two round stones. The lower one could be either convex or concave on top and the upper one was either concave or convex so as to fit nearly over the lower stone. Some examples of this type of mill have a funnel-shaped hole in the center of the top stone through which grain was poured. The upper mill was turned on the lower one by means of a wooden peg inserted on its outside edge. As the grain was crushed, it escaped along the edges of the upper stone. Commonly the stone used was black basalt because its rough and porous surface provided good cutting edges. The normal type of handmill could be operated by one person, but sometimes two persons were required (Mt 24:41).<\/p>\n<p>So important was the handmill in the life of the people that it was prohibited by law to take a man’s millstone as a pledge against the payment of a debt, for this would deprive his family of the means of making flour for bread (Dt 24:6). These stones were heavy enough to kill a man when thrown on his head, as in the case of Abimelech (Jgs 9:53; cf. 2 Sm 11:21).<\/p>\n<p>Normally, the grinding of grain was the task of servants (Ex 11:5) or of women (Is 47:2). The noise of grinding could be heard each day in every village in Palestine. When that sound ceased, the village had come to an end (Jer 25:10).<\/p>\n<p>There seems to have been larger community mills that required animal power. A heavy round stone, perhaps four to five feet (1.2 to 1.5 meters) in diameter, was rolled on its edge by means of a pole through its center. This pole rotated around a vertical post in much the same way as one finds in some Eastern lands even today. It may have been a large mill of this type that Samson was forced to use to grind grain for the Philistines (Jgs 16:21).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Food and Food Preparation; Bread; Agriculture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MILL Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 BC) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and th...","summary_en":"MILL Two circular stones (millstones) used in the grinding of grain. The grinding of grain as depicted in ancient art is attested in archaeological excavations in the Middle East from at least the Neolithic period (c. 8300–4500 BC) in the shape of various concave stones with flat grinding pieces accompanying them. These were essentially handmills. Over the centuries improvements in technique took place. But two elements were always necessary, the lower one on which the grain was spread and th...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45822,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:53","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","summary_en":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73448,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:53","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","summary_en":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101074,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:53","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","summary_en":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128700,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:53","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:53","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:53<\/strong> Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper <em>millstone<\/em> was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","summary_en":"9:53 Women frequently ground grain on a stationary lower millstone, on which the lighter upper millstone was turned by hand. This incident is referenced in the story of David’s murder of Uriah (2 Sam 11:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"54":[{"id":2741,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Armor and Weapons","title_en":"Armor and Weapons","content_ro":"<h3>ARMOR AND WEAPONS<\/h3>\n<p>The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by one side prompted new countertactics by the other.<\/p>\n<p>The three basic elements of the art of warfare are mobility, firepower, and security. Weapons alone seldom determined the issue of battle, particularly when both sides were evenly matched. The skill with which strategy and tactics were deployed, the spirit of the commander in directing his troops, and the precision with which the troops handled their weapons were decisive factors in many of the battles mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AttackWeapons\">Attack Weapons<\/p>\n<p>The armory of a military commander in antiquity consisted of a variety of offensive weapons designed to engage the enemy at long, medium, and short range. The bow and the sling were the principal weapons developed for long-range firepower; the javelin and the spear for medium-range; the sword, the ax, and the mace for short-range.<\/p>\n<h5>Bow<\/h5>\n<p>Early bows were fashioned from one piece of seasoned wood. No single type of bow wood, however, could provide the lightness, toughness, and elasticity required. Gradually the idea was conceived of combining several natural materials—wood, sections of animal horn, animal tendons and sinews, and glue—in the construction of a bow to meet all the demands placed on it. The resulting composite bow became a weapon of supreme importance. Composite structure gave a bow lightness, strength, and elasticity. Use of a double-convex form gave increased range and power of penetration.<\/p>\n<p>The bowstring was made from bindweed, natural cord, hide, or the intestines of oxen or camels. The bow was strung by hand (2 Kgs 13:16), usually bending it with the foot, which required considerable strength (cf. 2 Sm 22:35; Jer 51:3). That may explain why archers were known as “bow treaders” or as “those who tread a bow.”<\/p>\n<p>The form of the arrowhead was a response to the enemy’s defense and armor. In the late Bronze period, for example, a battle arrowhead was generally of bronze and was thick in the middle, tapering to a spine. Its shape was dictated by the fact that the coats of mail in widespread use at the time could be penetrated only by a spined or ribbed arrowhead. The arrow shaft was usually made from reed, a material that combined strength with pliability.<\/p>\n<h5>Sling<\/h5>\n<p>Complementing the bow was the sling, devised originally by shepherds to drive off animals molesting their flocks (cf. 1 Sm 17:40). It gradually assumed importance as a weapon of war, its supreme advantage being simple construction. Not only did a sling require little technical skill to produce, but the stones used as projectiles were readily available on the ground. In the hands of a trained slinger a missile could be hurled as far as 600 feet (183 meters) in any terrain. The sling’s capacity for high-angled fire up a steep slope was particularly important in an assault on a fortified city. Its principal disadvantage was that strenuous training and experience were required to achieve accuracy in its operation (cf. Jgs 20:16).<\/p>\n<p>A sling was commonly made from two leather thongs to which were attached a pocket for holding the stone. With the thongs pulled taut the pocket became a bag. The slinger held his arms above his head, the bag in his left hand and the ends of the taut thongs in his right hand. After swinging the sling several times around his head with great force to give it momentum, he suddenly released the end of one of the thongs to discharge the missile. Lead pellets as well as smooth stones were used as projectiles. They were carried in a bag or were piled conveniently at the slinger’s feet.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the sling as a long-range weapon is evident in the familiar account of David’s encounter with the Philistine champion, Goliath of Gath (1 Sm 17:40-51). At that time the Philistines possessed many advanced types of weapons, but the bow and sling were not among them. They depended on medium-range weapons like the javelin and short-range weapons like the sword (cf. 1 Sm 17:4-7, 45, 51). The sling gave David an advantage in range that was decisive against Goliath’s superior weapons and armor (1 Sm 17:48-49).<\/p>\n<h5>Javelin and Spear<\/h5>\n<p>Two weapons employed for medium-distance warfare were similar in appearance but different in length and operation. The javelin, generally lighter and shorter than the spear, was designed for throwing. It was like a large arrow that was hurled by the hand. Sumerian charioteers of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span> were armed with several javelins, carried like arrows in a quiver attached to the body of the chariot. Javelin heads were designed for penetration and altered in shape and material as enemy armor became more effective. A head fashioned with sharp hooks or barbs was difficult and painful to extract from a wound.<\/p>\n<p>The spear was similar in appearance to the javelin but was larger, heavier, and designed primarily as a thrusting weapon (cf. Nm 25:7-8). The oldest military monuments known indicate that the spear was already well developed. On the Egyptian hunter’s slate palette and on the black granite stele from Warka (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>), the warrior’s personal weapon is a long staff tipped with a leaf-shaped blade with a sharp spine. Throughout the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>, the spear was standard equipment for heavy-armed infantry and the most effective weapon for both chariot and infantry charges. Excavations have shown that the spear was the common weapon of the seminomadic tribes who began pouring into Palestine from the north in the middle Bronze Age.<\/p>\n<p>Another characteristic of spears in that early period was a metal tip attached to the butt of the shaft, enabling a spear to be stuck upright in the ground when not in use. That feature persisted into later periods and is mentioned specifically in reference to Saul’s spear, which was stuck in the ground by his head while he slept (1 Sm 26:7). Occasionally the metal tip functioned as a thrusting weapon in its own right, as is evident in the account of the slaying of Asahel (2 Sm 2:23).<\/p>\n<h5>Sword<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest objects made of iron was the sword. Swords were designed for either stabbing or striking. The stabbing sword developed as a long straight blade, tapered toward the point for piercing the body. Its tapered edges were sharpened so that it could also serve as a cutting instrument. The striking sword, on the other hand, had only one sharp edge, with the thickest part of the blade not along the center but along its blunt edge. Such a sword was often curved, sometimes to a degree that gave it the appearance of a sickle, but with the outer, convex edge sharpened as the cutting blade. The earliest type of sickle sword appeared in the second half of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Both the hilt, or handle, and the blade were fashioned from a single bar of metal. In the middle Bronze Age the curved striking sword functioned essentially as an ax, with a comparatively long hilt and short blade.<\/p>\n<p>That type of sword completely disappeared in the late Bronze Age because it proved ineffective against the widespread use of the helmet and armor. In its place appeared a new design with the curved blade equal in length to the hilt and sometimes longer. It provided a cutting weapon in chariot fighting and against an enemy who possessed no armor. Widespread use of such long-bladed swords at that time explains the phrase repeatedly used in the Bible to describe Joshua’s conquests of the Canaanites: Joshua smote them with the edge of the sword (e.g., Jos 8:24; 10:28-39). That expression would be inappropriate for the action of a short, straight, narrow sword designed as a thrusting weapon. A fine specimen of curved sword was found at Gezer in Palestine in the tomb of a nobleman, dating to the first half of the 14th century <span>BC<\/span>. The same type of blade is also depicted on a late 13th century <span>BC<\/span> ivory carving from Megiddo.<\/p>\n<p>During those centuries advances made in the technology of forging iron were reflected in the development of the straight sword as well. The Sea Peoples, among whom were the Philistines, specialized in short-range arms. As early as the 13th century <span>BC<\/span> they began to make the straight blade more effective than the curved sickle-type sword.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, the Philistines had used their technology to establish themselves as city dwellers and the dominant military presence in the land. Their military superiority was based on the chariot and on an infantry equipped with personal armaments of high quality. They carefully retained the forging of hard metal under their own supervision and kept the Israelites from developing forges of their own (cf. 1 Sm 13:19-22). Not until that situation was altered could the balance of power pass from the Philistines to Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Mace and Ax<\/h5>\n<p>The mace and the ax, developed as alternatives to the sword before hard metal could be forged, were designed for hand-to-hand fighting. They consisted of a comparatively short wooden handle, one end of which was fitted with a lethal head made of stone or metal. The weapons were swung like a hammer to deliver a striking blow. The critical detail was the secure fastening of the head to the handle to prevent its flying off when swung or breaking off when struck. The handle of both the mace and the ax was widened at the point of the grip, tapering toward the head, to prevent the weapon from slipping from the hand when swung. Such weapons were carried in the hand or attached to the wrist with a loop. The mace was designed to batter and smash, the ax to pierce and cut.<\/p>\n<p>The mace was a very primitive weapon. The hieroglyphic sign for the infinitive <em>to fight<\/em> represents hands holding a mace and a medium-size shield. During the Chalcolithic and the first half of the early Bronze periods (3500–2500 <span>BC<\/span>), the mace was the primary weapon for personal combat. Because the helmet had not yet made its appearance, the striking power of the mace was devastating. Long after the mace had become obsolete as a personal weapon, it continued to serve as a symbol of sovereign authority for the king or deity (cf. Ps 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>Complex technical problems taxed the ingenuity of armorers in the production of the ax. The blade had to be fixed securely to the handle. The cutting ax had a short blade and a wide edge. It was an effective weapon against an enemy unprotected by armor. It was also used for tearing down the wall of a besieged city, as in the wall painting at Saqqarah (23d century <span>BC<\/span>). But against armor the cutting ax was ineffective. Deeper power of penetration was achieved with the piercing ax, which had a long, narrow blade ending in a short, sharp edge.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DefensiveProtection\">Defensive Protection<\/p>\n<p>Without provision for personal protection of the individual soldier on the battlefield, the mobility and firepower of an army could be seriously compromised.<\/p>\n<h5>Shield<\/h5>\n<p>Designed to provide a barrier between the body of a soldier and the weapon of his foe, the shield was one of the oldest means of security devised. In the time of the judges and the early Israelite kings, persons of rank were frequently protected by a very large shield. It was carried by a special shield bearer who remained constantly at the unprotected right side of the warrior to whom he was assigned as a bodyguard (cf. Jgs 9:54; 1 Sm 14:1; 17:7; 2 Sm 18:15). The right side of an armed combatant was unprotected because he carried his weapons in his right hand and his shield in his left. The shield bearer therefore had to stand by his master’s vulnerable right side to protect him (1 Sm 17:41; cf. Ps 16:8). In that period the shield was ordinarily anointed as part of the consecration of an Israelite warrior and his weapons for battle (cf. 2 Sm 1:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Armor<\/h5>\n<p>Personal armor protected the body of a combatant from injury while freeing his hands to use his weapons. The earliest type of body armor formed a substitute for the long shield. It consisted of a full-length tunic made from leather or some tough fiber. It was relatively simple to produce, was light enough to permit full mobility, and offered a measure of protection to the chest, abdomen, back, thighs, and legs. So equipped, a soldier required only a short shield to protect his arms and face.<\/p>\n<p>The late Bronze period saw the development of the coat of mail. It consisted of hundreds of small pieces of overlapping metal joined together like fish scales and sewed to the surface of a cloth or leather tunic. Written documents from Nuzi state that from 400 to 600 large scales and several hundred smaller scales went into the production of a single coat. Smaller scales and narrower rows were used where greater flexibility was needed, as at the throat and neck. The resulting garment was relatively flexible, affording freedom of movement, while the hard metal scales gave far greater personal protection than leather or fiber could provide.<\/p>\n<h5>Helmet<\/h5>\n<p>Since the greatest point of vulnerability for a soldier in combat was his head, concern for some form of protective helmet can be traced as far back as the end of the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Bronze helmets were worn both by Goliath and by Saul (1 Sm 17:5, 38). Although the helmet was standard equipment for the heavily armed infantry of foreign armies for centuries, it does not seem to have been a common possession of soldiers in the Israelite army during the period of the united monarchy. Among military reforms introduced by King Uzziah in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> was provision of helmets for the army of the southern kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 26:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Warfare.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ARMOR AND WEAPONS<\/h3>\n<p>The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by one side prompted new countertactics by the other.<\/p>\n<p>The three basic elements of the art of warfare are mobility, firepower, and security. Weapons alone seldom determined the issue of battle, particularly when both sides were evenly matched. The skill with which strategy and tactics were deployed, the spirit of the commander in directing his troops, and the precision with which the troops handled their weapons were decisive factors in many of the battles mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AttackWeapons\">Attack Weapons<\/p>\n<p>The armory of a military commander in antiquity consisted of a variety of offensive weapons designed to engage the enemy at long, medium, and short range. The bow and the sling were the principal weapons developed for long-range firepower; the javelin and the spear for medium-range; the sword, the ax, and the mace for short-range.<\/p>\n<h5>Bow<\/h5>\n<p>Early bows were fashioned from one piece of seasoned wood. No single type of bow wood, however, could provide the lightness, toughness, and elasticity required. Gradually the idea was conceived of combining several natural materials—wood, sections of animal horn, animal tendons and sinews, and glue—in the construction of a bow to meet all the demands placed on it. The resulting composite bow became a weapon of supreme importance. Composite structure gave a bow lightness, strength, and elasticity. Use of a double-convex form gave increased range and power of penetration.<\/p>\n<p>The bowstring was made from bindweed, natural cord, hide, or the intestines of oxen or camels. The bow was strung by hand (2 Kgs 13:16), usually bending it with the foot, which required considerable strength (cf. 2 Sm 22:35; Jer 51:3). That may explain why archers were known as “bow treaders” or as “those who tread a bow.”<\/p>\n<p>The form of the arrowhead was a response to the enemy’s defense and armor. In the late Bronze period, for example, a battle arrowhead was generally of bronze and was thick in the middle, tapering to a spine. Its shape was dictated by the fact that the coats of mail in widespread use at the time could be penetrated only by a spined or ribbed arrowhead. The arrow shaft was usually made from reed, a material that combined strength with pliability.<\/p>\n<h5>Sling<\/h5>\n<p>Complementing the bow was the sling, devised originally by shepherds to drive off animals molesting their flocks (cf. 1 Sm 17:40). It gradually assumed importance as a weapon of war, its supreme advantage being simple construction. Not only did a sling require little technical skill to produce, but the stones used as projectiles were readily available on the ground. In the hands of a trained slinger a missile could be hurled as far as 600 feet (183 meters) in any terrain. The sling’s capacity for high-angled fire up a steep slope was particularly important in an assault on a fortified city. Its principal disadvantage was that strenuous training and experience were required to achieve accuracy in its operation (cf. Jgs 20:16).<\/p>\n<p>A sling was commonly made from two leather thongs to which were attached a pocket for holding the stone. With the thongs pulled taut the pocket became a bag. The slinger held his arms above his head, the bag in his left hand and the ends of the taut thongs in his right hand. After swinging the sling several times around his head with great force to give it momentum, he suddenly released the end of one of the thongs to discharge the missile. Lead pellets as well as smooth stones were used as projectiles. They were carried in a bag or were piled conveniently at the slinger’s feet.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the sling as a long-range weapon is evident in the familiar account of David’s encounter with the Philistine champion, Goliath of Gath (1 Sm 17:40-51). At that time the Philistines possessed many advanced types of weapons, but the bow and sling were not among them. They depended on medium-range weapons like the javelin and short-range weapons like the sword (cf. 1 Sm 17:4-7, 45, 51). The sling gave David an advantage in range that was decisive against Goliath’s superior weapons and armor (1 Sm 17:48-49).<\/p>\n<h5>Javelin and Spear<\/h5>\n<p>Two weapons employed for medium-distance warfare were similar in appearance but different in length and operation. The javelin, generally lighter and shorter than the spear, was designed for throwing. It was like a large arrow that was hurled by the hand. Sumerian charioteers of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span> were armed with several javelins, carried like arrows in a quiver attached to the body of the chariot. Javelin heads were designed for penetration and altered in shape and material as enemy armor became more effective. A head fashioned with sharp hooks or barbs was difficult and painful to extract from a wound.<\/p>\n<p>The spear was similar in appearance to the javelin but was larger, heavier, and designed primarily as a thrusting weapon (cf. Nm 25:7-8). The oldest military monuments known indicate that the spear was already well developed. On the Egyptian hunter’s slate palette and on the black granite stele from Warka (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>), the warrior’s personal weapon is a long staff tipped with a leaf-shaped blade with a sharp spine. Throughout the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>, the spear was standard equipment for heavy-armed infantry and the most effective weapon for both chariot and infantry charges. Excavations have shown that the spear was the common weapon of the seminomadic tribes who began pouring into Palestine from the north in the middle Bronze Age.<\/p>\n<p>Another characteristic of spears in that early period was a metal tip attached to the butt of the shaft, enabling a spear to be stuck upright in the ground when not in use. That feature persisted into later periods and is mentioned specifically in reference to Saul’s spear, which was stuck in the ground by his head while he slept (1 Sm 26:7). Occasionally the metal tip functioned as a thrusting weapon in its own right, as is evident in the account of the slaying of Asahel (2 Sm 2:23).<\/p>\n<h5>Sword<\/h5>\n<p>One of the earliest objects made of iron was the sword. Swords were designed for either stabbing or striking. The stabbing sword developed as a long straight blade, tapered toward the point for piercing the body. Its tapered edges were sharpened so that it could also serve as a cutting instrument. The striking sword, on the other hand, had only one sharp edge, with the thickest part of the blade not along the center but along its blunt edge. Such a sword was often curved, sometimes to a degree that gave it the appearance of a sickle, but with the outer, convex edge sharpened as the cutting blade. The earliest type of sickle sword appeared in the second half of the third millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Both the hilt, or handle, and the blade were fashioned from a single bar of metal. In the middle Bronze Age the curved striking sword functioned essentially as an ax, with a comparatively long hilt and short blade.<\/p>\n<p>That type of sword completely disappeared in the late Bronze Age because it proved ineffective against the widespread use of the helmet and armor. In its place appeared a new design with the curved blade equal in length to the hilt and sometimes longer. It provided a cutting weapon in chariot fighting and against an enemy who possessed no armor. Widespread use of such long-bladed swords at that time explains the phrase repeatedly used in the Bible to describe Joshua’s conquests of the Canaanites: Joshua smote them with the edge of the sword (e.g., Jos 8:24; 10:28-39). That expression would be inappropriate for the action of a short, straight, narrow sword designed as a thrusting weapon. A fine specimen of curved sword was found at Gezer in Palestine in the tomb of a nobleman, dating to the first half of the 14th century <span>BC<\/span>. The same type of blade is also depicted on a late 13th century <span>BC<\/span> ivory carving from Megiddo.<\/p>\n<p>During those centuries advances made in the technology of forging iron were reflected in the development of the straight sword as well. The Sea Peoples, among whom were the Philistines, specialized in short-range arms. As early as the 13th century <span>BC<\/span> they began to make the straight blade more effective than the curved sickle-type sword.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of Saul, the Philistines had used their technology to establish themselves as city dwellers and the dominant military presence in the land. Their military superiority was based on the chariot and on an infantry equipped with personal armaments of high quality. They carefully retained the forging of hard metal under their own supervision and kept the Israelites from developing forges of their own (cf. 1 Sm 13:19-22). Not until that situation was altered could the balance of power pass from the Philistines to Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Mace and Ax<\/h5>\n<p>The mace and the ax, developed as alternatives to the sword before hard metal could be forged, were designed for hand-to-hand fighting. They consisted of a comparatively short wooden handle, one end of which was fitted with a lethal head made of stone or metal. The weapons were swung like a hammer to deliver a striking blow. The critical detail was the secure fastening of the head to the handle to prevent its flying off when swung or breaking off when struck. The handle of both the mace and the ax was widened at the point of the grip, tapering toward the head, to prevent the weapon from slipping from the hand when swung. Such weapons were carried in the hand or attached to the wrist with a loop. The mace was designed to batter and smash, the ax to pierce and cut.<\/p>\n<p>The mace was a very primitive weapon. The hieroglyphic sign for the infinitive <em>to fight<\/em> represents hands holding a mace and a medium-size shield. During the Chalcolithic and the first half of the early Bronze periods (3500–2500 <span>BC<\/span>), the mace was the primary weapon for personal combat. Because the helmet had not yet made its appearance, the striking power of the mace was devastating. Long after the mace had become obsolete as a personal weapon, it continued to serve as a symbol of sovereign authority for the king or deity (cf. Ps 2:9).<\/p>\n<p>Complex technical problems taxed the ingenuity of armorers in the production of the ax. The blade had to be fixed securely to the handle. The cutting ax had a short blade and a wide edge. It was an effective weapon against an enemy unprotected by armor. It was also used for tearing down the wall of a besieged city, as in the wall painting at Saqqarah (23d century <span>BC<\/span>). But against armor the cutting ax was ineffective. Deeper power of penetration was achieved with the piercing ax, which had a long, narrow blade ending in a short, sharp edge.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DefensiveProtection\">Defensive Protection<\/p>\n<p>Without provision for personal protection of the individual soldier on the battlefield, the mobility and firepower of an army could be seriously compromised.<\/p>\n<h5>Shield<\/h5>\n<p>Designed to provide a barrier between the body of a soldier and the weapon of his foe, the shield was one of the oldest means of security devised. In the time of the judges and the early Israelite kings, persons of rank were frequently protected by a very large shield. It was carried by a special shield bearer who remained constantly at the unprotected right side of the warrior to whom he was assigned as a bodyguard (cf. Jgs 9:54; 1 Sm 14:1; 17:7; 2 Sm 18:15). The right side of an armed combatant was unprotected because he carried his weapons in his right hand and his shield in his left. The shield bearer therefore had to stand by his master’s vulnerable right side to protect him (1 Sm 17:41; cf. Ps 16:8). In that period the shield was ordinarily anointed as part of the consecration of an Israelite warrior and his weapons for battle (cf. 2 Sm 1:21).<\/p>\n<h5>Armor<\/h5>\n<p>Personal armor protected the body of a combatant from injury while freeing his hands to use his weapons. The earliest type of body armor formed a substitute for the long shield. It consisted of a full-length tunic made from leather or some tough fiber. It was relatively simple to produce, was light enough to permit full mobility, and offered a measure of protection to the chest, abdomen, back, thighs, and legs. So equipped, a soldier required only a short shield to protect his arms and face.<\/p>\n<p>The late Bronze period saw the development of the coat of mail. It consisted of hundreds of small pieces of overlapping metal joined together like fish scales and sewed to the surface of a cloth or leather tunic. Written documents from Nuzi state that from 400 to 600 large scales and several hundred smaller scales went into the production of a single coat. Smaller scales and narrower rows were used where greater flexibility was needed, as at the throat and neck. The resulting garment was relatively flexible, affording freedom of movement, while the hard metal scales gave far greater personal protection than leather or fiber could provide.<\/p>\n<h5>Helmet<\/h5>\n<p>Since the greatest point of vulnerability for a soldier in combat was his head, concern for some form of protective helmet can be traced as far back as the end of the fourth millennium <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Bronze helmets were worn both by Goliath and by Saul (1 Sm 17:5, 38). Although the helmet was standard equipment for the heavily armed infantry of foreign armies for centuries, it does not seem to have been a common possession of soldiers in the Israelite army during the period of the united monarchy. Among military reforms introduced by King Uzziah in the ninth century <span>BC<\/span> was provision of helmets for the army of the southern kingdom of Judah (2 Chr 26:14).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Warfare.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ARMOR AND WEAPONS The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by o...","summary_en":"ARMOR AND WEAPONS The location of Palestine at the crossroads of three continents gave it a strategic importance in the ancient world quite out of proportion to its size. Surrounded by the great military powers (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Hittites of Anatolia), that stretch of land was constantly the object of aggressive ambitions of other nations. The invention of different weapons, fortifications, and tactics exerted a profound reciprocal influence on other inventions. Tactical innovation by o...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":45823,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:54","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:54","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","summary_en":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73449,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:54","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:54","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","summary_en":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101075,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:54","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:54","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","summary_en":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128701,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:54","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:54","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:54-55<\/strong> To die at the hands of <em>a woman<\/em> or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","summary_en":"9:54-55 To die at the hands of a woman or a child was shameful (see study note on 8:20-21). Abimelech was not given a peace formula or burial notice, because his reign was not legitimate.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"56":[{"id":45824,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:56","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:56","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","summary_en":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73450,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:56","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:56","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","summary_en":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101076,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:56","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:56","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","summary_en":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":128702,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Judecătorii 9:56","title_en":"Study Note: Judecătorii 9:56","content_ro":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>9:56-57<\/strong> The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","summary_en":"9:56-57 The theological summary returns to the theme of Jotham’s fable (9:24). Abimelech had no divine charisma, and his death as a result of divine vengeance meant that justice was finally served for Gideon’s family. Israel’s experiment with uninspired kingship was a stark example of leadership that was not from God.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"57":[{"id":20909,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jotham","title_en":"Jotham","content_ro":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JOTHAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (9:7). Jotham then fled to Beer for fear of a reprisal from Abimelech (v 21). Later, God fulfilled Jotham’s curse; the people of Shechem were killed in a revolt and Abimelech was struck down at the hands of a woman (v 57).<\/li>\n<li>2. Eleventh king of Judah (750–735 <span>BC<\/span>). He was the son of King Azariah (Uzziah) of Judah and Jerusa, daughter of Zadok (2 Kgs 15:7; 2 Chr 26:21; 27:1), and the father of Ahaz. Jotham, at 25 years of age, ascended Judah’s throne in the second year of King Pekah of Israel (752–732 <span>BC<\/span>) and ruled for 16 years in Jerusalem. Initially he reigned as co-regent with Azariah, who was stricken with leprosy for tolerating pagan worship, until his father’s death (2 Kgs 15:5).<\/li>\n<p>Jotham was considered a righteous king in the eyes of the Lord. However, he also failed to cleanse the temple of its pagan influences, and subsequently the people of Judah continued in their evil ways (2 Chr 27:2-6). His building projects included the Upper Gate of the temple, work on the wall of Ophel, and the fortification of numerous towns in Judah’s hill country (vv 3-4). Jotham also defeated the troublesome Ammonites in battle (v 5) and registered by genealogy the families of Gad living east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:17). He was buried in Jerusalem after his death (2 Chr 27:9). The prophets Isaiah and Micah ministered to Judah, and Hosea to Israel, during his tenure as king. Jotham is listed as an ancestor of Jesus Christ in Matthew’s genealogy (Mt 1:9).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Israel, History of.<\/p>\n<li>3. Second of Jahdai’s five sons (1 Chr 2:47).<\/li>","summary_ro":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","summary_en":"JOTHAM 1. Youngest of Gideon’s 70 sons and the only survivor of Abimelech’s slaughter of Jotham’s brothers at Ophrah (Jgs 9:5). Upon learning of Abimelech’s intrigue with the Shechemites, which led to the death of his brothers, Jotham traveled to Shechem and addressed its people from atop nearby Mt Gerizim. Using a parable, he portrayed Abimelech’s rise as king and concluded his denunciation by issuing a curse on both his half brother (see 8:31) and the people of Shechem for their treachery (...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Judecătorii 9
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨