Citește Biblia

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":41064,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moab and Ammon","title_en":"Moab and Ammon","content_ro":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","summary_en":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68690,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moab and Ammon","title_en":"Moab and Ammon","content_ro":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","summary_en":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96316,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moab and Ammon","title_en":"Moab and Ammon","content_ro":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","summary_en":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":123942,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Moab and Ammon","title_en":"Moab and Ammon","content_ro":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Moab and Ammon<\/h3>\n<p>The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated by Sihon, the Amorite king who ruled at Heshbon (see Num 21:13, 26). After Israel defeated Sihon, King Balak of Moab feared that Israel might conquer his land, and Moab waged war against them (Num 22:1–25:3; Josh 24:9). From that time onward, Moab and Israel were often in conflict (Judg 3:12-30; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:2; 2 Kgs 3), but there were also periods of peace (Ruth 1:1-2) between them. A Moabite woman named Ruth displayed great kindness to her tragedy-plagued Israelite mother-in-law, Naomi, and she came to be part of the family line that produced King David and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to Ammon, son of the younger daughter of Lot (Gen 19:36-38). They settled in an area of the Transjordan northeast of the Dead Sea. When the Israelites arrived in the area after leaving Egypt, God instructed them not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Deut 2:18-19, 37). The Ammonites helped the Moabites oppose Israel and were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Deut 23:3-6; Neh 13:1-2; see Num 22:1–25:3). Thereafter the Ammonites were frequent enemies of Israel (Judg 10–11; 1 Sam 11; 14:47; 1 Chr 20:1-3; 2 Chr 20:1-24), though David seems to have allied with them for a time (2 Sam 17:27-29; 23:37).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Deut 23:3-6<\/p>","summary_ro":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","summary_en":"Moab and Ammon The Moabites were descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Gen 19:36-38). They settled on the high plateau immediately east of the Dead Sea. Most of Moab is gently rolling tableland divided by ravines. Even at its peak, ancient Moab encompassed a relatively small territory, but its location on the King’s Highway was strategically important (see Num 21:21-22; Judg 11:15-18). Prior to the Israelites’ passage through the Transjordan, the Moabites were dominated...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":1359,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ammonites Ammon","title_en":"Ammonites Ammon","content_ro":"<h3>AMMON, AMMONITES<\/h3>\n<p>A Semitic people who occupied a fertile area northeast of Moab in Transjordan between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers and extending eastward to the Syrian Desert. The chief city was Rabbah (Rabbath-ammon), modern Amman, capital of Jordan.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to the younger daughter of Lot (Gn 19:38). Their name in Hebrew originally meant “son of my paternal clan,” preserving the remembrance of an actual clan and personal name, and suggesting a kinship between the Ammonites and Israelites. The name occurred frequently in the ancient Near East from the middle of the second millennium on. One form was found in Assyrian inscriptions; other forms are seen in Ugaritic texts of the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>, in the Mari texts, in the Amarna tablets, and in the Alalakh tablets.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites originated in the southern Transjordan region about the beginning of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Though these people were of mixed ancestry, the languages they spoke were closely related to Hebrew. Ammonite was written in the old Canaanite-Phoenician script, which could probably be read and understood by Israelites. Ammonites intermarried with Hebrews (1 Kgs 14:21, 31; 2 Chr 12:13), and their personal names reflected early Arabic influences.<\/p>\n<p>In language, ethnic background, and physical characteristics the Ammonites were difficult to distinguish from Amorites and were probably closely related. Both may have entered the land at about the same time, for when Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan, both the Ammonite kingdom and the Amorite kingdom of Heshbon were already well established.<\/p>\n<p>The OT states that the territory of Ammon was once occupied by a race of giants called Rephaim or Zamzummim, about whom almost nothing is known (Dt 2:20-21; “Zuzim,” Gn 14:5). The Genesis Apocryphon found among the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions them as one of the people defeated by the alliance of four kings (Gn 14:1, 5). The expedition of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (Gn 14), broke the power of those giants and probably made the occupation of the land by Esau, Ammon, and Moab much easier. King Og was “of the remnant of the Rephaim” known to the Ammonites (Dt 3:11). His bed was evidently an object of veneration because of its unusual size.<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites arrived at Kadesh, they encountered the well-organized kingdom of Edom but were refused permission to pass through Edomite territory (Nm 20:14-21). They journeyed northward to Ammonite country, which was then occupied by the Amorite king Sihon. He also refused them permission to pass through his land, but the Israelites defeated him in battle and occupied his country (Nm 21:21-24). They were instructed by God through Moses not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Dt 2:19, 37).<\/p>\n<p>Continuing northward, the Israelites defeated King Og of Bashan (Dt 3:1-11), then went down to the Jordan Valley, where they camped on the plains of Moab. There Balak, king of Moab, hired a soothsayer, Balaam, to pronounce a curse on the Israelites, but Balaam pronounced a blessing each time instead (Nm 22–24). For supporting the Moabites in their actions, the Ammonites were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Dt 23:3; Neh 13:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite tribes of Gad and Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh were attracted to the fertile Transjordan region that had belonged to the Amorites and Bashan and decided to settle there on the Ammonite frontier (Nm 32; Dt 3:16; Jos 13:8-32). Subsequently they built an altar at the Jordan River, which the other tribes at first interpreted as an act of rebellion in that they appeared to be establishing a rival place of worship (Jos 22:10-34).<\/p>\n<p>Before the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the Ammonites evidently had not attained the same level of political organization and settled life as the neighboring Moabites and Edomites. Even as late as the seventh century <span>BC<\/span> the nation was essentially nomadic. Shortly after Israel settled in Canaan, the Ammonites allied with the Moabites and Amalekites when King Eglon of Moab tried to regain former Moabite territory at the north end of the Dead Sea (Jgs 3:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>By the end of the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> the Israelites, then securely established in the land of Canaan, angered God by their worship of the deities of the Syrians, Sidonians, Moabites, Ammonites, and Philistines (Jgs 10:6). The Ammonites, in their first recorded political expansion, launched an attack against Israel and were able to establish themselves in Gilead (Jgs 10:7-8). They then crossed the Jordan and attacked the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim (Jgs 10:9). In desperation the elders of Gilead turned for help to Jephthah, a social outcast but an able military leader (Jgs 11:1-11). He defeated the Ammonites so decisively that it was unnecessary for him to wage further campaigns against Ammonite settlements west of the Jordan (Jgs 11:12-33).<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of the 11th century an Ammonite king named Nahash came to power, determined to reestablish Ammonite dominion over Israelite settlements in Transjordan. He launched an aggressive military campaign around 1020 <span>BC<\/span> that took him as far north as Jabesh-gilead. The inhabitants of the town were willing to surrender to him but delayed their surrender to appeal for help from Saul, the recently consecrated Israelite king. Saul quickly organized an army and decisively defeated the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-11). The victory ensured freedom from Ammonite domination in the Jordan Valley for several centuries, although later in his reign Saul was forced to fight further battles with the enemies of Israel, including Ammonites (1 Sm 14:47-48).<\/p>\n<p>When David became king, he took silver and gold from the Ammonites, Philistines, and Amalekites, either as spoils or as tribute (2 Sm 8:11-12; 1 Chr 18:11). Soon thereafter, David sent Joab at the head of a strong army to devastate the Ammonite countryside and besiege the capital city of Rabbah (2 Sm 11:1; 1 Chr 20:2). The siege lasted many months, but Joab weakened the city and David then completed its capture (2 Sm 12:26-29). In a ceremony of capitulation the Ammonite king’s massive golden crown was placed on David’s head (2 Sm 12:30; 1 Chr 20:1). The conquered city was plundered, and its inhabitants were enslaved. Other Ammonite cities were taken, and the nation was added to the growing number of vassal states of Israel (2 Sm 12:31; 1 Chr 20:3). David appointed a governor over the Ammonites from the Ammonite royal family. Shobi, another son of Nahash (and therefore Hanun’s brother), became ruler of the Ammonites and aided David during his flight from Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sm 17:27). One of David’s best warriors was an Ammonite (2 Sm 23:37).<\/p>\n<p>Ammonite relations with Israel remained generally peaceful during the reign of Solomon, David’s successor, with the Ammonites undoubtedly sharing in the prosperity and wealth of that period. After the death of Solomon, the kingdom split apart under Rehoboam and was further weakened by a campaign of Shishak, king of Egypt, that swept through Palestine and also through Ammonite territory. Taking advantage of the situation, the Ammonites declared their independence from Israel and Judah. The Ammonites joined the Moabites and Meunites to make war against King Jehoshaphat of Judah (reigning 871–848 <span>BC<\/span>). In fear, Jehoshaphat sought help from God in prayer (2 Chr 20:1-12). The Ammonites and their allies began fighting among themselves and destroyed each other, leaving behind great spoils for Jehoshaphat and his people—which took three days to be carried away (2 Chr 20:22-25). Eventually the Ammonites recovered, so that by the end of the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>, Ammon had again become completely independent and was the dominant state of south Transjordan. Ammonite independence was short, however, for in 599 <span>BC<\/span>, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar led his troops into Syria and began raiding southern Palestine. In 593 <span>BC<\/span>, the Ammonites met in Jerusalem with King Zedekiah of Judah and representatives from Edom, Moab, Tyre, and Sidon in a conspiracy to rebel against Babylon (Jer 27:1-3). The prophet Jeremiah warned them that God would cause their plan to fail (Jer 27:4-22). Nebuchadnezzar sent an army to crush the rebellion and attacked Jerusalem, which he destroyed after a lengthy and bitter siege (586 <span>BC<\/span>), deporting many Jews to Babylonia. Ammon was not immediately invaded, however, and many Judeans sought refuge there (Jer 40:11), including a man named Ishmael (Jer 40:13-16). Ishmael plotted with Baalis, king of Ammon, to assassinate Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had appointed governor over Judea, now reduced to a province of Babylonia. After carrying out the assassination, Ishmael escaped to Ammon (Jer 41:1-15). Nebuchadnezzar then sent troops that sacked Rabbah and took captive many of the Ammonites. Though the city was not destroyed, the destruction of the countryside was thorough. In the third century <span>BC<\/span>, Arab invaders poured in and destroyed the remaining organized political structure, thus marking the end of Ammon as a semi-independent state.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>AMMON, AMMONITES<\/h3>\n<p>A Semitic people who occupied a fertile area northeast of Moab in Transjordan between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers and extending eastward to the Syrian Desert. The chief city was Rabbah (Rabbath-ammon), modern Amman, capital of Jordan.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites traced their ancestry to the younger daughter of Lot (Gn 19:38). Their name in Hebrew originally meant “son of my paternal clan,” preserving the remembrance of an actual clan and personal name, and suggesting a kinship between the Ammonites and Israelites. The name occurred frequently in the ancient Near East from the middle of the second millennium on. One form was found in Assyrian inscriptions; other forms are seen in Ugaritic texts of the 15th century <span>BC<\/span>, in the Mari texts, in the Amarna tablets, and in the Alalakh tablets.<\/p>\n<p>The Ammonites originated in the southern Transjordan region about the beginning of the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Though these people were of mixed ancestry, the languages they spoke were closely related to Hebrew. Ammonite was written in the old Canaanite-Phoenician script, which could probably be read and understood by Israelites. Ammonites intermarried with Hebrews (1 Kgs 14:21, 31; 2 Chr 12:13), and their personal names reflected early Arabic influences.<\/p>\n<p>In language, ethnic background, and physical characteristics the Ammonites were difficult to distinguish from Amorites and were probably closely related. Both may have entered the land at about the same time, for when Joshua led the Israelites into Canaan, both the Ammonite kingdom and the Amorite kingdom of Heshbon were already well established.<\/p>\n<p>The OT states that the territory of Ammon was once occupied by a race of giants called Rephaim or Zamzummim, about whom almost nothing is known (Dt 2:20-21; “Zuzim,” Gn 14:5). The Genesis Apocryphon found among the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions them as one of the people defeated by the alliance of four kings (Gn 14:1, 5). The expedition of Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (Gn 14), broke the power of those giants and probably made the occupation of the land by Esau, Ammon, and Moab much easier. King Og was “of the remnant of the Rephaim” known to the Ammonites (Dt 3:11). His bed was evidently an object of veneration because of its unusual size.<\/p>\n<p>When the Israelites arrived at Kadesh, they encountered the well-organized kingdom of Edom but were refused permission to pass through Edomite territory (Nm 20:14-21). They journeyed northward to Ammonite country, which was then occupied by the Amorite king Sihon. He also refused them permission to pass through his land, but the Israelites defeated him in battle and occupied his country (Nm 21:21-24). They were instructed by God through Moses not to try to occupy Ammonite territory, as it had already been given to the descendants of Lot (Dt 2:19, 37).<\/p>\n<p>Continuing northward, the Israelites defeated King Og of Bashan (Dt 3:1-11), then went down to the Jordan Valley, where they camped on the plains of Moab. There Balak, king of Moab, hired a soothsayer, Balaam, to pronounce a curse on the Israelites, but Balaam pronounced a blessing each time instead (Nm 22–24). For supporting the Moabites in their actions, the Ammonites were excluded from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation (Dt 23:3; Neh 13:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>The Israelite tribes of Gad and Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh were attracted to the fertile Transjordan region that had belonged to the Amorites and Bashan and decided to settle there on the Ammonite frontier (Nm 32; Dt 3:16; Jos 13:8-32). Subsequently they built an altar at the Jordan River, which the other tribes at first interpreted as an act of rebellion in that they appeared to be establishing a rival place of worship (Jos 22:10-34).<\/p>\n<p>Before the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the Ammonites evidently had not attained the same level of political organization and settled life as the neighboring Moabites and Edomites. Even as late as the seventh century <span>BC<\/span> the nation was essentially nomadic. Shortly after Israel settled in Canaan, the Ammonites allied with the Moabites and Amalekites when King Eglon of Moab tried to regain former Moabite territory at the north end of the Dead Sea (Jgs 3:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>By the end of the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> the Israelites, then securely established in the land of Canaan, angered God by their worship of the deities of the Syrians, Sidonians, Moabites, Ammonites, and Philistines (Jgs 10:6). The Ammonites, in their first recorded political expansion, launched an attack against Israel and were able to establish themselves in Gilead (Jgs 10:7-8). They then crossed the Jordan and attacked the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim (Jgs 10:9). In desperation the elders of Gilead turned for help to Jephthah, a social outcast but an able military leader (Jgs 11:1-11). He defeated the Ammonites so decisively that it was unnecessary for him to wage further campaigns against Ammonite settlements west of the Jordan (Jgs 11:12-33).<\/p>\n<p>Near the end of the 11th century an Ammonite king named Nahash came to power, determined to reestablish Ammonite dominion over Israelite settlements in Transjordan. He launched an aggressive military campaign around 1020 <span>BC<\/span> that took him as far north as Jabesh-gilead. The inhabitants of the town were willing to surrender to him but delayed their surrender to appeal for help from Saul, the recently consecrated Israelite king. Saul quickly organized an army and decisively defeated the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-11). The victory ensured freedom from Ammonite domination in the Jordan Valley for several centuries, although later in his reign Saul was forced to fight further battles with the enemies of Israel, including Ammonites (1 Sm 14:47-48).<\/p>\n<p>When David became king, he took silver and gold from the Ammonites, Philistines, and Amalekites, either as spoils or as tribute (2 Sm 8:11-12; 1 Chr 18:11). Soon thereafter, David sent Joab at the head of a strong army to devastate the Ammonite countryside and besiege the capital city of Rabbah (2 Sm 11:1; 1 Chr 20:2). The siege lasted many months, but Joab weakened the city and David then completed its capture (2 Sm 12:26-29). In a ceremony of capitulation the Ammonite king’s massive golden crown was placed on David’s head (2 Sm 12:30; 1 Chr 20:1). The conquered city was plundered, and its inhabitants were enslaved. Other Ammonite cities were taken, and the nation was added to the growing number of vassal states of Israel (2 Sm 12:31; 1 Chr 20:3). David appointed a governor over the Ammonites from the Ammonite royal family. Shobi, another son of Nahash (and therefore Hanun’s brother), became ruler of the Ammonites and aided David during his flight from Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sm 17:27). One of David’s best warriors was an Ammonite (2 Sm 23:37).<\/p>\n<p>Ammonite relations with Israel remained generally peaceful during the reign of Solomon, David’s successor, with the Ammonites undoubtedly sharing in the prosperity and wealth of that period. After the death of Solomon, the kingdom split apart under Rehoboam and was further weakened by a campaign of Shishak, king of Egypt, that swept through Palestine and also through Ammonite territory. Taking advantage of the situation, the Ammonites declared their independence from Israel and Judah. The Ammonites joined the Moabites and Meunites to make war against King Jehoshaphat of Judah (reigning 871–848 <span>BC<\/span>). In fear, Jehoshaphat sought help from God in prayer (2 Chr 20:1-12). The Ammonites and their allies began fighting among themselves and destroyed each other, leaving behind great spoils for Jehoshaphat and his people—which took three days to be carried away (2 Chr 20:22-25). Eventually the Ammonites recovered, so that by the end of the seventh century <span>BC<\/span>, Ammon had again become completely independent and was the dominant state of south Transjordan. Ammonite independence was short, however, for in 599 <span>BC<\/span>, according to the Babylonian Chronicle, Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar led his troops into Syria and began raiding southern Palestine. In 593 <span>BC<\/span>, the Ammonites met in Jerusalem with King Zedekiah of Judah and representatives from Edom, Moab, Tyre, and Sidon in a conspiracy to rebel against Babylon (Jer 27:1-3). The prophet Jeremiah warned them that God would cause their plan to fail (Jer 27:4-22). Nebuchadnezzar sent an army to crush the rebellion and attacked Jerusalem, which he destroyed after a lengthy and bitter siege (586 <span>BC<\/span>), deporting many Jews to Babylonia. Ammon was not immediately invaded, however, and many Judeans sought refuge there (Jer 40:11), including a man named Ishmael (Jer 40:13-16). Ishmael plotted with Baalis, king of Ammon, to assassinate Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had appointed governor over Judea, now reduced to a province of Babylonia. After carrying out the assassination, Ishmael escaped to Ammon (Jer 41:1-15). Nebuchadnezzar then sent troops that sacked Rabbah and took captive many of the Ammonites. Though the city was not destroyed, the destruction of the countryside was thorough. In the third century <span>BC<\/span>, Arab invaders poured in and destroyed the remaining organized political structure, thus marking the end of Ammon as a semi-independent state.<\/p>","summary_ro":"AMMON, AMMONITES A Semitic people who occupied a fertile area northeast of Moab in Transjordan between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers and extending eastward to the Syrian Desert. The chief city was Rabbah (Rabbath-ammon), modern Amman, capital of Jordan. The Ammonites traced their ancestry to the younger daughter of Lot (Gn 19:38). Their name in Hebrew originally meant “son of my paternal clan,” preserving the remembrance of an actual clan and personal name, and suggesting a kinship between the ...","summary_en":"AMMON, AMMONITES A Semitic people who occupied a fertile area northeast of Moab in Transjordan between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers and extending eastward to the Syrian Desert. The chief city was Rabbah (Rabbath-ammon), modern Amman, capital of Jordan. The Ammonites traced their ancestry to the younger daughter of Lot (Gn 19:38). Their name in Hebrew originally meant “son of my paternal clan,” preserving the remembrance of an actual clan and personal name, and suggesting a kinship between the ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8119,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","title_en":"Law and Punishment*, Criminal","content_ro":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT*<\/h3>\n<p>The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, “crimes” included all punishable offenses, even religious offenses such as idolatry (worshiping a false god) or blasphemy (speaking or behaving with contempt toward God).<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>• Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<p>• Punishment<\/p>\n<p>• Conclusion<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NearEasternContext\">Near Eastern Context<\/p>\n<p>In ancient societies as in modern ones, laws were considered necessary to regulate individual behavior for the good of the community, state, or nation. Today laws are thought of as made by people for their own protection. In contrast, all ancient Near Eastern law codes were considered to have come directly from some divine source. Hebrew law, though distinct, followed the general pattern of Near Eastern law codes, as is known from those that have survived—such as the Code of Hammurabi and Assyrian and Hittite laws.<\/p>\n<p>Conclusions about the “origin” of ancient laws should be made cautiously. Although evidence indicates that Hammurabi based his legislation partially on earlier Sumerian codes, he declared that his code had been received from Shamash, god of justice. That declaration must have been intended to convey primarily that his code had the express sanction of Shamash, since at least some people would recognize it as a compilation based largely on earlier laws. Similarly, the clear biblical statements about Moses receiving the law on Mt Sinai (Ex 19–24) do not rule out the possibility that parts of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) may have existed in earlier codes. Possibly the Mosaic legislation included some social rules adapted from the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HebrewCriminalLaw\">Hebrew Criminal Law<\/p>\n<h5>Laws Governing Offenses against God<\/h5>\n<p>Since Hebrew law was designed for a group of people for whom religion was of paramount importance and whose faith was endangered by the influence of the beliefs of their pagan neighbors, it is not surprising that so much of Hebrew law dealt with crimes committed against God. The prohibition against worshiping idols is stated and repeated in the Torah, or Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible): “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them” (Ex 20:4-5, <span>rsv<\/span>). Sacrifice of infants, practiced in some pagan religions, was specifically prohibited in Israel. The penalty for that crime, as for the other forms of murder, was stoning to death (Lv 20:2).<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Leviticus, death by stoning was recorded as the appropriate punishment for blaspheming the name of God (Lv 24:11-16). False prophecy was also a criminal offense; that accusation could apply to a person making a prediction in the name of a god other than the Lord, or implying falsely that one’s prophecy resulted from a communication with God. Jeremiah, whose prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the southern kingdom of Judah was for a time considered to be false, was almost lynched by a mob (Jer 26:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>The idea of keeping the seventh day holy stemmed from the celebration of God’s work in creating the universe in six days and resting on the seventh. Keeping the Sabbath required cessation of manual work for the entire family, including farm animals (Ex 16:23; 20:8-11). People were also required to meet together on the Sabbath for worship, which at a later period in Hebrew history included the reading of Scripture, prayer, and preaching. Anyone breaking the Sabbath could be sentenced to death, as happened to a man caught gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Nm 15:32-36).<\/p>\n<p>Any type of premeditated crime was considered an offense against God, the giver of all law; hence, it was punishable by death (Nm 15:30-31). Hebrew law also insisted on donation of the firstfruits of harvest to the Lord without delay. That requirement was sometimes carried over to include a first child, whose life was dedicated to service in the temple (Ex 22:29-30; Dt 15:19).<\/p>\n<h5>Personal Injury<\/h5>\n<p>Murder, an offense against “God’s image,” was one of many crimes punishable by death in OT times. The book of Exodus stated unequivocally that “anyone who hits a person hard enough to cause death must be put to death” (Ex 21:12, <span>nlt<\/span>). A murderer who killed by using a weapon such as a stone, a piece of wood, or iron could be killed in revenge by a relative of the deceased. If the original death happened accidentally, the community would sometimes help to conceal the killer and encourage him to hide in a nearby city of refuge, where he would be safe as long as he remained within its gates. He had to stay in that sanctuary until the death of the high priest then in office, after which he was free to return to his own city (Nm 35:10-28). The sixth commandment enjoined, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). The Hebrew word referred specifically to murder, not to all forms of killing. Killing an enemy in battle and the execution of a murderer were considered necessary and were not prohibited. More than one witness was required for any conviction, particularly in a murder case (Nm 35:30; Dt 17:6; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p>In the Code of Hammurabi a man responsible for an accidental injury to another was required to pay for the services of the physician. If the victim died, a fine was payable according to the victim’s rank. In a sense the Hebrews went further by requiring payment for any loss of time suffered by the injured person (Ex 21:18-19).<\/p>\n<p>Kidnapping was punishable by death in the OT. Exodus states that “Kidnappers must be killed, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves” (Ex 21:16, <span>nlt<\/span>). Joseph’s being sold into slavery by his brothers illustrates this kind of kidnapping.<\/p>\n<h5>Laws concerning Property<\/h5>\n<p>The book of Exodus is quite specific about anyone responsible for damage to the property or crops of another. If a field caught fire and the fire spread, damaging crops in other fields, the person who started the fire, or perhaps the owner of the first field to catch fire, was responsible for the damage (Ex 22:6). Hammurabi’s code cited a similar instance of a man who neglected to keep a dike in repair and was therefore responsible for flood damage to his neighbor’s crops.<\/p>\n<p>Injuries to animals, especially oxen, or injuries to people or property caused by such animals formed an important area of Hebrew law. If an ox that had been previously good-tempered killed a man, the owner would be blameless, although the ox would be put to death—a severe financial penalty for the owner. If an ox with a history of goring killed a man because its owner failed to restrain it adequately, both ox and owner would be put to death. The owner’s life could be ransomed by payment of an agreed-upon sum. If the person an ox gored was a servant, the ox was stoned and the owner paid a fine (Ex 21:28-32). The Code of Hammurabi also recommended no punishment for a first offense by an animal, but if the owner knew that the ox was dangerous and had taken no steps to prevent harm, a fine in silver was payable—a very large fine for an upper-class victim, slightly less if the victim was a slave. However bad the circumstances and however vicious the ox, the Code of Hammurabi stopped at a fine for the offense, never imposing a death penalty on either the animal or the owner.<\/p>\n<p>Negligence causing injury to an animal was also punished in Hebrew law. If an ox or a donkey fell into a pit carelessly left uncovered, the owner of the animal was reimbursed for its loss (Ex 21:33-36).<\/p>\n<p>In ancient cultures women were generally considered chattel (personal property), much like animals or slaves. A daughter was considered to be her father’s property until her marriage, then the property of her husband. Therefore, any offense against a married woman was regarded as an offense against the property of the husband. According to the Code of Hammurabi, a child could be sold into slavery as a servant or bondsman, usually in payment of the father’s debt (cf. Ex 21:2-7; Neh 5:5-8; Is 50:1). Parental authority was so highly regarded in biblical law that a stubborn and rebellious son could be brought before the elders on the grounds of being disobedient and a glutton or a drunkard. He might then be convicted and stoned to death on the spot by the men of the city (Dt 21:18-21). Even that, however, was a protection of the child’s rights; some Near Eastern legislation allowed a parent to order the death of his offspring without reference to the elders or to anyone else. With daughters in particular being held in such low esteem, it is perhaps remarkable that a daughter could inherit property if there were no sons (Nm 27:8).<\/p>\n<p>Adultery, prohibited in the Decalogue, was another crime against a man’s property, specifically his wife. The book of Deuteronomy goes into considerable detail about cases of adultery—the punishment for both persons being death (Dt 22:22). If a man seduced a young woman who was not betrothed, he was required to pay her father the bride price (50 silver shekels); he could not divorce her but had to keep her as his wife for the rest of his life (Ex 22:16; Dt 22:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>In a situation where a wife was accused of adultery but without evidence, a trial was conducted. The husband would bring his wife to a priest and present a small offering (a tenth of a measure of barley meal, with neither oil nor frankincense on it), indicating the low esteem in which he now held his wife. The woman then stood before the Lord holding an earthen jar of “holy water.” Dust from the floor of the tabernacle was mixed with the water, and the cereal offering was placed in her hands. Her hair was loosened by the priest to show not only her grief but also to give an impression of abandonment. She was then required to take an oath. After that, the priest pronounced a curse upon her to the effect that her womb would be fertilized easily, but that she would have many miscarriages. She had to give her consent to that pronouncement. The priest then wrote the curses in a book and symbolically washed them off into the “bitter water.” The woman was required to drink the water while the priest waved the cereal offering from her hands before the Lord and burned some of it on the altar. The priest told her that if she was guilty, the water would make her thigh rot and her abdomen swell. If that happened, she would become an outcast; but if she were proved innocent, she would be free. Whatever the result, no blame for false accusation fell upon the husband (Nm 5:12-31).<\/p>\n<p>If a slave was struck by his master in such a manner as to cause instant death, the slave’s death had to be avenged. If the slave lingered, possibly for days, he did not need to be avenged, his loss being a sufficient punishment for the owner (Ex 21:20-21). It is unlikely that the Hebrews had much experience with that law, which had no parallels in Hammurabi’s code. If an owner injured his slave by causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, Hebrew law required that the slave be set free (vv 26-27). The Code of Hammurabi gave an example of a man injuring another man’s slave; the owner had to be paid half the slave’s value.<\/p>\n<p>Little emphasis was placed on burglary or larceny in the Hebrew law code. A burglar was presumed to be repentant and ready to make restitution. After return of the stolen property and payment of a small additional fine, a thief could again “approach the Lord” (Lv 6:2-7). By contrast, the Code of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for burglary. In Hebrew law, theft of an animal required restitution to be made in the ratio of at least two to one; if a bull or a cow had been stolen or sold, the thief had to restore the property fivefold. The Code of Hammurabi contained a similar statute: “If a man steal ox or sheep, ass or pig, or goat—if it be from a god or a palace, he shall restore thirtyfold; if it be from a freeman, he shall render tenfold. If the thief have nothing wherewith to pay, he shall be put to death.” In Hebrew law goods stolen from a home were simply to be restored without additional penalty. If the thief no longer had the goods and was unable to pay the equivalent value, he might be sold into slavery until restitution was made (Ex 22:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>General Laws<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew code as contained in Exodus and Deuteronomy included many general prohibitions. Some concerned business dealings such as the removal of boundary markers (Dt 19:14). The use of false weights and measures was condemned (Lv 19:35; Dt 25:15; Prv 11:1; 20:23; Mi 6:11). Bribery was strictly forbidden (Ex 23:8), yet no punishment was specified for those who broke that law. In the Code of Hammurabi, if a judge changed his decision and was unable to give a satisfactory explanation, particularly if bribery was suspected, the judge had to pay 12 times the amount of the penalty and lost his seat on the bench. In the Hebrew code, perjury was also dealt with, although again no punishment was specified. The Code of Hammurabi stated that for perjury in cases where the punishment was death, persons giving false testimony were to be sentenced to death themselves (cf. Ex 23:1).<\/p>\n<p>A number of Hebrew laws reflected concern for the poor. For example, poor people were not to be subjected to usury if they were in debt, or left cold at night if their coats were taken as a pledge. Widows, orphans, and strangers were also to be treated with mercy and understanding (Ex 22:21-27; 23:9; Dt 23:19; 24:17).<\/p>\n<p>Some Hebrew laws concerned family behavior, such as those previously mentioned who cursed or disobeyed their parents (Ex 21:17; Lv 20:9; Dt 27:16; cf. Prv 20:20; 30:17). Family responsibilities were strong; an entire family frequently suffered punishment for the crime of one of its individual members (Jos 7:20-26; 2 Sm 3:29; 21:1-9; 2 Kgs 5:27; Lam 5:7). Over a period of time, as individual responsibility came to be recognized, parents were no longer put to death for the crimes of their children, or vice versa (cf. Jer 31:29-30).<\/p>\n<p>Sorcery and witchcraft were forbidden. The book of Exodus stated explicitly, “A sorceress must not be allowed to live” (22:18, <span>nlt<\/span>). Sexual perversions, such as intercourse with animals, were forbidden under penalty of death. Regulations prohibiting marriage with close relatives were given in detail (Lv 20:17-21).<\/p>\n<p>In Hebrew law no parallel existed for some interesting items in the Code of Hammurabi concerning surgery. That code mentioned veterinary surgery and even operations on the human eye. A Babylonian surgeon had to be wary, for “if a physician makes a deep incision upon a man with his bronze lancet and causes the man’s death or operates on the eye socket of a man with his bronze lancet and destroys the man’s eye, then they shall cut off his hand.” Surgery was virtually unknown among the ancient Israelites except for the ritual practice of circumcision.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Punishment\">Punishment<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern punishments for murder and personal injury were retaliatory and often of the same nature as the offense. Other methods of punishment tended to vary with individual countries or traditions. Many kinds of punishment were inflicted on people defeated in both a full-scale war or a small insurrection.<\/p>\n<h5>Physical Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Many forms of punishment stopped short of killing but could nevertheless be quite severe.<\/p>\n<p>1. In the OT beating with rods or switches was the traditional form of discipline for children, fools, and slaves (Ex 21:20; Prv 13:24; 26:3). Scourging (also called flogging) was more severe than beating. The whip employed could be made of several strips of leather fastened at one end or of two interwoven leather strips. A whip nicknamed “scorpion” (because of the barbs in its end) was one of the cruelest instruments of punishment mentioned in the OT (1 Kgs 12:11, 14). The severity of punishment could be increased by inserting pieces of metal or bone into the leather.<\/p>\n<p>Before a scourging, the victim would be examined for physical fitness. If death resulted from the blows, no blame was attached to the person administering the punishment. The victim was stripped to the waist and tied to a pillar, his hands bound with leather thongs. The severity of a scourging depended on the crime, although the Mosaic law set an upper limit of 40 lashes (Dt 25:1-3). To guard against a miscount, that number was later lowered by one (2 Cor 11:24). Lashes might be administered both on the chest and the back. Under some law codes, scourging could be used as a private punishment; in that case, if the victim died, another life was forfeit.<\/p>\n<p>In offenses against the law, synagogue authorities administered scourgings (Mt 10:17). A husband might be scourged by the elders of the city for defamation of his wife’s character (Dt 22:18). Scourging was also used as a means of interrogating a prisoner—hence, a Roman captain’s comment that the apostle Paul should be “examined by scourging” (Acts 22:24).<\/p>\n<p>The Romans usually reserved scourging for non-Roman citizens, such as slaves or aliens, as well as for those condemned to death. Normally, criminals were scourged after they had been condemned to death; it is therefore unusual to find the scourging of Jesus taking place before his condemnation. Pilate may have hoped to soften the people’s hearts by Jesus’ suffering so that they would not demand the death penalty (Lk 23:16, 22; Jn 19:1).<\/p>\n<p>Citizens of the Roman Empire could never be beaten or scourged before sentencing (Acts 22:25). Hence, the magistrates were afraid when they heard that Paul, a Roman citizen, had been beaten under those circumstances (16:37-39).<\/p>\n<li>2. The gouging out of the eyes of prisoners and captives was a common practice in the Near East. The Philistines blinded Samson before imprisoning him (Jgs 16:21). The Babylonians did the same to King Zedekiah in 587 <span>BC<\/span> before taking him into captivity (2 Kgs 25:7). The Ammonite king Nahash was prepared to accept peace overtures from the men of the city of Jabesh on condition that all their right eyes be gouged out. Nahash’s purpose was to disgrace them and prevent them from further active participation in warfare (1 Sm 11:1-4).<\/li>\n<li>3. Several forms of mutilation served as punishments in the Near East. The Israelites considered their own bodies sacred and made in God’s image, but that did not prevent them from mutilating their enemies by cutting off their thumbs and large toes.<\/li>\n<p>The Code of Hammurabi and the Assyrian law code prescribed mutilation of the eye, nose, ear, breast, tongue, lip, hand, and finger as punishments for specific crimes. In Assyria, punishment was often inflicted by the victim of the crime under supervision of court officials. The Code of Hammurabi also contained safeguards so that criminals were not punished in excess of the law’s sentence.<\/p>\n<li>4. Stocks are mentioned as a form of punishment in the later OT period. The prophets Hanani (2 Chr 16:10) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:2-3) suffered the indignity of being placed in stocks. Both ankles, and sometimes the wrists and head as well, were placed in holes in two large pieces of wood. In Roman times, stocks were converted to a form of torture, with a prisoner’s legs stretched to holes increasingly far apart. In the NT, Paul and Silas had their feet placed in stocks by a Philippian jailer (Acts 16:24). The same Greek word, meaning “confinement,” can refer to fetters chaining a prisoner or to an iron collar like that worn by runaway Roman slaves.<\/li>\n<h5>Capital Punishment<\/h5>\n<p>Capital punishment was common in many Near Eastern countries. Several methods were used.<\/p>\n<p>1. Those who offended a king were beheaded with a sword (2 Sm 16:9; 2 Kgs 6:31-32), as were idolaters and murderers (according to the Mishnah, the Jewish commentary on the law). The sword was probably used for private executions as well. Inhabitants of entire cities were sometimes “put to the sword” for their denial of the faith (Ex 32:27; Dt 13:15).<\/p>\n<li>2. Certain sexual offenses were punished with death by burning (Lv 20:14; 21:9). Tamar, Judah’s daughter-in-law, was accused of adultery and ordered to be burned to death outside the city (Gn 38:24). The Lord instructed that anyone whose feet touched the holy ground of Mt Sinai was to be shot with arrows or stoned (Ex 19:13).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hanging may have been a form of execution in biblical times. But many scholars think the word translated “hanging” or “hanging on a tree” actually meant impalement (Nm 25:4; Dt 21:22-23; Jos 8:29; 2 Sm 21:6, 9; Est 9:14). A spiked wooden stake was set in the ground and the victim’s body was forced onto the spike, the tip of which probably protruded from the chest or mouth. Commonly practiced by the Assyrians, that form of execution was reserved for those guilty of the worst crimes and for prisoners of war or deserters. The Persian king Darius is reputed to have impaled 3,000 men when his army entered Babylon. Impalement was the penalty Darius set for changing his edict concerning the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 6:11-12). It is not certain whether Haman was hung or impaled (see Est 7:9-10, <span>nlt<\/span> and mg notes).<\/li>\n<p>Usually “hanging” was a means of exhibiting a corpse as a warning to local inhabitants (Gn 40:19; Jos 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sm 4:12). Corpses were exhibited for only one day and were buried before nightfall. The hanging corpse was considered a defilement of the land that God had given (Dt 21:22-23). According to the Mishnah, the hands were tied together and the body hanged from the arm of a wooden gallows.<\/p>\n<li>4. Crucifixion was a punishment employed by the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167–166 <span>BC<\/span>; according to Josephus, a first-century <span>AD<\/span> Jewish historian, Jews who refused to give up their traditional faith were so executed. During the Maccabean period (167–40 <span>BC<\/span>), Alexander Janneus crucified 800 rebellious Pharisees in an attempt to reestablish his authority. Crucifixion was a widespread form of execution: it was used in most places in the Roman Empire, including India, North Africa, and Germany. Between 4 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70, on some occasions the number of people crucified at one time reached into the thousands.<\/li>\n<p>Three types of crosses seem to have been used: a cross with the crossbar below the head of the upright bar (Latin cross); a T-shaped cross (St Anthony’s cross); and an X-shaped cross (St Andrew’s cross). Matthew records that an inscription, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews,” was placed over Jesus’ head (Mt 27:37). That indicates that for Jesus’ crucifixion a Latin cross was used, as artists have traditionally depicted it. In crucifixions the victim was most likely affixed to the cross while it was still lying flat on the ground. Then the cross was raised into position and dropped into a hole. The hands were either nailed or bound to the cross; it is uncertain whether the feet were nailed with one or two nails. The weight of the body was supported by a piece of wood at the feet and possibly by another that was like a spike between the legs.<\/p>\n<li>5. Stoning was the most common Hebrew death penalty. The first stones were thrown by the prosecution witnesses, who were then joined by spectators. Stoning was the punishment for certain religious offenses (Lv 24:16; Nm 15:32-36; Dt 13:1-10; 17:2-5), adultery (Dt 22:23-24), child sacrifice (Lv 20:2), divination of spirits (Lv 20:27), and rebellion (Dt 21:18-21). Before his conversion, the apostle Paul witnessed and consented to the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58-59). Paul himself later survived a stoning at Lystra (14:19). In Roman times, a person would occasionally be stoned as he stood on a gallows.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>Hebrew law was part of the Torah (“instruction”) given by God to make his covenant people holy. At that time the Israelites were a seminomadic band of former slaves. Although there are similarities with the Code of Hammurabi and other laws of settled Near Eastern cultures, there are also many differences. Hebrew law often had a broader view, even in its less sophisticated cultural setting, as though its purpose was more to teach godly behavior than to stabilize society. The simplicity and directness of the Ten Commandments, in particular, continue to influence jurisprudence, even in modern secular society.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible’s primary message is God’s love for his covenant people, yet it never overlooks the harsh realities of life in a fallen world. Human beings sin and they commit crimes; they suffer estrangement from God because of their sin and are punished for their crimes. Christians are constantly reminded of the realism of God’s love by the cross as the symbol of Christian faith. They see the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of OT prophecy that the Lord put our iniquity on him (Is 53:5-6). The NT conviction is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Civil Law and Justice; Courts and Trials; Hammurabi, Law Code of; Law, Biblical Concept of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","summary_en":"CRIMINAL LAW AND PUNISHMENT* The science or philosophy of law is called jurisprudence. Although modern jurisprudence bears little resemblance to biblical concepts of law, the Scriptures have played a definite role in its development. Today, criminal law is clearly distinguished from civil law; in Bible times the distinction was much less clear. Today, offenses against civil law (torts) are distinguished from minor crimes (misdemeanors) as well as from serious crimes (felonies). In the Bible, ...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13861,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gilead (Place)","title_en":"Gilead (Place)","content_ro":"<h3>GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River.<\/li>\n<p>The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys and hills were well watered by numerous rivers and tributaries, making flatter portions of the countryside well suited for agriculture, especially olive trees, grapevines, and grains (cf. Jer 8:22; 46:11; Hos 2:8). The densely forested and rugged hills were sometimes compared to those of Lebanon (Jer 22:6; Zec 10:10) and made the land a refuge for those in flight, since the terrain prohibited ready pursuit by enemies (cf. Gn 31:21; 1 Sm 13:7).<\/p>\n<p>Originally the region of Gilead was allotted to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (Nm 32). The period of the judges saw Israelite security there assailed by the Midianites and Amalekites, only to be checked by the military exploits of Gideon (Jgs 6–7). Half a century later, Jephthah was recalled from his banishment to rescue Gilead from oppressive Ammonite rule (chs 10–11). During the united monarchy, Saul delivered Jabesh-gilead from Ammonite dominance (1 Sm 11:1-11; 31:8-13; 2 Sm 2:1-7). Abner installed Ish-bosheth as a rival to David in Gilead (2 Sm 2:8-9). David conquered the Ammonites controlling Gilead as he extended the borders of Israel (8:11-12; 10:1-19). He fled there for refuge in the face of Absalom’s rebellion (chs 15–17) and was finally restored to the throne when Absalom was slain in the forest of Ephraim (chs 18–19). Gilead remained a battleground during the divided monarchy, as first the Israelites warred with the Syrians (Arameans; 1 Kgs 20:23-43; 22:1-4, 29-40; 2 Kgs 13:22; Am 1:3) and then with the Assyrians, who wrested the territory from Pekah in 733 <span>BC<\/span> and deported the Israelite population, thus severing Gilead’s tie to the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 15:27-31).<\/p>\n<li>2. A city condemned for its evil (Hos 6:8), possibly an abbreviated name for Jabesh-gilead or Ramoth-gilead. This may be the same Gilead that was identified with Mizpah #5. (cf. Jgs 10:17-18).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River.<\/li>\n<p>The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys and hills were well watered by numerous rivers and tributaries, making flatter portions of the countryside well suited for agriculture, especially olive trees, grapevines, and grains (cf. Jer 8:22; 46:11; Hos 2:8). The densely forested and rugged hills were sometimes compared to those of Lebanon (Jer 22:6; Zec 10:10) and made the land a refuge for those in flight, since the terrain prohibited ready pursuit by enemies (cf. Gn 31:21; 1 Sm 13:7).<\/p>\n<p>Originally the region of Gilead was allotted to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh (Nm 32). The period of the judges saw Israelite security there assailed by the Midianites and Amalekites, only to be checked by the military exploits of Gideon (Jgs 6–7). Half a century later, Jephthah was recalled from his banishment to rescue Gilead from oppressive Ammonite rule (chs 10–11). During the united monarchy, Saul delivered Jabesh-gilead from Ammonite dominance (1 Sm 11:1-11; 31:8-13; 2 Sm 2:1-7). Abner installed Ish-bosheth as a rival to David in Gilead (2 Sm 2:8-9). David conquered the Ammonites controlling Gilead as he extended the borders of Israel (8:11-12; 10:1-19). He fled there for refuge in the face of Absalom’s rebellion (chs 15–17) and was finally restored to the throne when Absalom was slain in the forest of Ephraim (chs 18–19). Gilead remained a battleground during the divided monarchy, as first the Israelites warred with the Syrians (Arameans; 1 Kgs 20:23-43; 22:1-4, 29-40; 2 Kgs 13:22; Am 1:3) and then with the Assyrians, who wrested the territory from Pekah in 733 <span>BC<\/span> and deported the Israelite population, thus severing Gilead’s tie to the northern kingdom (2 Kgs 15:27-31).<\/p>\n<li>2. A city condemned for its evil (Hos 6:8), possibly an abbreviated name for Jabesh-gilead or Ramoth-gilead. This may be the same Gilead that was identified with Mizpah #5. (cf. Jgs 10:17-18).<\/li>","summary_ro":"GILEAD (Place) 1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River. The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys a...","summary_en":"GILEAD (Place) 1. Region east of the Jordan River. Generally used to designate the territory occupied by all the Transjordanian Israelite tribes (Jgs 20:1; 2 Kgs 10:33; Jer 50:19; Zec 10:10). Specifically, Gilead is the area of the Transjordan lying between the Yarmuk and Arnon Rivers and divided by the Jabbok River. The so-called Dome of Gilead is an extension of the central hill country of Judah, rising to heights of more than 3,000 feet (914.4 meters) above the Jordan Valley. The valleys a...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18190,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jabesh-Gilead (Place) Jabesh","title_en":"Jabesh-Gilead (Place) Jabesh","content_ro":"<h3>JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadites and next appears in 1 Samuel 11. East of the Jordan River, Jabesh was exposed to Ammonite attack, and Nahash of Ammon forced Jabesh-gilead to seek terms of surrender. The condition imposed by the barbarous Nahash was the loss of the right eye for all the inhabitants, a mutilation intended to humiliate Israel and destroy the military potential of a border fortress. The sequel was Saul’s forced march, a fine piece of military prowess, and a tremendous boost for the new king’s prestige. Saul gained in one swift blow the support of the Transjordanian tribes and the reduction of the frontier threat that a militarily powerful Ammon would undoubtedly offer. The men of Jabesh-gilead repaid their deep debt to Saul when the king, now unbalanced and rejected, died on Mt Gilboa with his son Jonathan in a last attempt to blunt the Philistine drive to the north. The bodies of Saul and Jonathan, hung headless over the walls of Beth-shan, were cut down and rescued by a commando force from Jabesh-gilead, who made a forced march of nine miles (14.5 kilometers) each way to honor their onetime benefactor (1 Sm 31:8-13; 1 Chr 10:8-12). When David became king, he repaid the men of Jabesh-gilead with gratitude.<\/p>\n<p>The name Jabesh is preserved in that of the Wadi el-Yabis that runs into the Jordan directly south of the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The town itself, according to Eusebius’s generally reliable topography, was about six miles (9.7 kilometers) south of Pella on the road to Gerasa. The twin tells of Tell el-Maqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz on the Wadi el-Yabis correspond with Eusebius’s location much better than the other site suggested: Tell el-Maqlub. Tell el-Meqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz are on the eastern rim of the Jordan Valley and fit the details of the historical record—Saul’s forced march from Bezek, and the route of the Jabesh-gilead raiding party to Beth-shan.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (P<span>lace<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadites and next appears in 1 Samuel 11. East of the Jordan River, Jabesh was exposed to Ammonite attack, and Nahash of Ammon forced Jabesh-gilead to seek terms of surrender. The condition imposed by the barbarous Nahash was the loss of the right eye for all the inhabitants, a mutilation intended to humiliate Israel and destroy the military potential of a border fortress. The sequel was Saul’s forced march, a fine piece of military prowess, and a tremendous boost for the new king’s prestige. Saul gained in one swift blow the support of the Transjordanian tribes and the reduction of the frontier threat that a militarily powerful Ammon would undoubtedly offer. The men of Jabesh-gilead repaid their deep debt to Saul when the king, now unbalanced and rejected, died on Mt Gilboa with his son Jonathan in a last attempt to blunt the Philistine drive to the north. The bodies of Saul and Jonathan, hung headless over the walls of Beth-shan, were cut down and rescued by a commando force from Jabesh-gilead, who made a forced march of nine miles (14.5 kilometers) each way to honor their onetime benefactor (1 Sm 31:8-13; 1 Chr 10:8-12). When David became king, he repaid the men of Jabesh-gilead with gratitude.<\/p>\n<p>The name Jabesh is preserved in that of the Wadi el-Yabis that runs into the Jordan directly south of the southern end of the Sea of Galilee. The town itself, according to Eusebius’s generally reliable topography, was about six miles (9.7 kilometers) south of Pella on the road to Gerasa. The twin tells of Tell el-Maqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz on the Wadi el-Yabis correspond with Eusebius’s location much better than the other site suggested: Tell el-Maqlub. Tell el-Meqereh and Tell Abu Kharaz are on the eastern rim of the Jordan Valley and fit the details of the historical record—Saul’s forced march from Bezek, and the route of the Jabesh-gilead raiding party to Beth-shan.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (Place) Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadit...","summary_en":"JABESH, JABESH-GILEAD (Place) Town appearing in the closing chapters of the book of Judges (chs 19–21). This is a sad record of the division and degradation of the land, which tells of a base atrocity committed by the men of Gibeah against a Levite’s concubine, a sanguinary war against Benjamin in consequence, and savage reprisals against Jabesh-gilead, whose community had sent no contingent to the battle. Such is the first mention of the town. The town was repopulated by neighboring Gileadit...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26841,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nahash","title_en":"Nahash","content_ro":"<h3>NAHASH<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of the Ammonites who laid siege to Jabesh-gilead during the days of Saul. The men of the city, offering themselves in servitude, petitioned Nahash to make a treaty with them; he agreed to do so on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel. Given a week’s reprieve from his threat, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army (1 Sm 11:1-2; 12:12). He later honored a reconciliation with David, which his son Hanun, on bad counsel, disregarded (2 Sm 10:2; 1 Chr 19:1-2).<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Abigail and Zeruiah (2 Sm 17:25). In 1 Chronicles 2:16, Abigail and Zeruiah are listed as the daughters of Jesse and the sisters of David and his brothers. Various theories have been offered to resolve this difference. The most feasible suggests that Nahash’s wife bore him Abigail and Zeruiah; after his death, his widow married Jesse and subsequently bore David.<\/li>\n<li>3. Father of Shobi from Rabbah, the chief Ammonite city east of the Jordan. Shobi, along with Makir and Barzillai, took care of David’s domestic needs during his flight from Absalom (2 Sm 17:27). He is perhaps identifiable with #1 above.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>NAHASH<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of the Ammonites who laid siege to Jabesh-gilead during the days of Saul. The men of the city, offering themselves in servitude, petitioned Nahash to make a treaty with them; he agreed to do so on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel. Given a week’s reprieve from his threat, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army (1 Sm 11:1-2; 12:12). He later honored a reconciliation with David, which his son Hanun, on bad counsel, disregarded (2 Sm 10:2; 1 Chr 19:1-2).<\/li>\n<li>2. Father of Abigail and Zeruiah (2 Sm 17:25). In 1 Chronicles 2:16, Abigail and Zeruiah are listed as the daughters of Jesse and the sisters of David and his brothers. Various theories have been offered to resolve this difference. The most feasible suggests that Nahash’s wife bore him Abigail and Zeruiah; after his death, his widow married Jesse and subsequently bore David.<\/li>\n<li>3. Father of Shobi from Rabbah, the chief Ammonite city east of the Jordan. Shobi, along with Makir and Barzillai, took care of David’s domestic needs during his flight from Absalom (2 Sm 17:27). He is perhaps identifiable with #1 above.<\/li>","summary_ro":"NAHASH 1. King of the Ammonites who laid siege to Jabesh-gilead during the days of Saul. The men of the city, offering themselves in servitude, petitioned Nahash to make a treaty with them; he agreed to do so on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel. Given a week’s reprieve from his threat, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army (1 Sm 11:1-2; 12:12). He later honored a rec...","summary_en":"NAHASH 1. King of the Ammonites who laid siege to Jabesh-gilead during the days of Saul. The men of the city, offering themselves in servitude, petitioned Nahash to make a treaty with them; he agreed to do so on the condition that he gouge out each one’s right eye to shame all of Israel. Given a week’s reprieve from his threat, the men of Jabesh organized a secret war plan with Saul and Israel, resulting in the destruction of Nahash’s Ammonite army (1 Sm 11:1-2; 12:12). He later honored a rec...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33731,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Samuel (Person)","title_en":"Samuel (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SAMUEL (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Last of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PersonalHistory\">Personal History<\/p>\n<p>Samuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr 6:26) and a resident in Ramah, territory of Ephraim. His mother, Hannah, was unable to bear children early in their marriage. Elkanah had a second wife, Peninnah.<\/p>\n<p>On a visit to Shiloh, Hannah prayed in the sanctuary (1 Sm 1:6-11), vowing that, if the Lord would give her a son, she would dedicate him as a Nazirite (Nm 6:1-21) to God’s service for life. The Lord heard Hannah’s prayer and granted her request. She had no other children until after Samuel’s dedication.<\/p>\n<p>When Samuel was presented to Eli and began his service in the sanctuary, he bowed before the Lord and “worshiped the <span>Lord<\/span> there” (1 Sm 1:28). Three ingredients—a feeling of worth, a knowledge of his parents’ love (cf. 2:19), and a sense of purpose—laid the foundation of his personality and his future accomplishments.<\/p>\n<p>Further proof of Samuel’s valuable early training is evidenced in 1 Samuel 2. Eli’s sons had followed the licentious practices of the pagan religions about them. Eli was old, indulgent, and powerless to restrain them. Samuel neither developed irreverence for Eli nor followed his sons in the path of evil. God determined to judge Eli and his house for their sins. When God announced his purpose to Samuel, Samuel responded with reverence and respect. His personal and spiritual growth indicated that he had been marked out as a future prophet of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p> When everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes (cf. Jgs 17:6; 21:25), God allowed an adjacent nation to serve as his instrument to chasten his people, until a judge arose to deliver them. When the Philistines again invaded the land (1 Sm 4–6), the Israelites mustered their army at Ebenezer, only to be defeated. Believing that the ark of the covenant would guarantee success, they sent to Shiloh for it. The next day the Israelites were again defeated and the ark captured. When this news reached Eli, he fell from his stool and died.<\/p>\n<p>Twenty years elapsed before Samuel’s name is mentioned again (1 Sm 7:2-3). Evidently, following the destruction of Shiloh (cf. Jer 7:12-14; 26:6, 9; Ps 78:60), he lived in Ramah and went on annual preaching missions that included Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, “judging” the people in these places (cf. Dt 16:18-22; 17:8-13). Samuel probably also founded “schools of the prophets” during this period. Schools were established at Bethel (1 Sm 10:5; 2 Kgs 2:3), Gilgal (2 Kgs 4:38), Ramah (1 Sm 19:20), and elsewhere (2 Kgs 2:5), perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Samuel’s ministry.<\/p>\n<p>After a 20-year ministry, Samuel thought it timely to move toward spiritual and national unification. He convened a meeting at Mizpah (1 Sm 7). There, with a symbolic rite expressive of deep humiliation and in keeping with the libations of a treaty, the Israelites poured out water on the ground, fasted, and prayed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines mistook the nature of the convocation and decided to attack the defenseless worshipers, who entreated Samuel to pray for them. He offered a sacrifice and the Lord sent a violent thunderstorm, causing the invaders to flee in panic. The pursuing Israelites won a significant victory at Ebenezer (1 Sm 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>In Samuel’s declining years, the elders rejected his leadership in favor of a king (1 Sm 8). Following earnest prayer, he received new direction from the Lord, acceded to their request, and later anointed Saul prince over God’s people. Samuel then summoned the Israelites to Mizpah, where God’s choice was made official, and Saul was hailed as king. Following Saul’s victory over Nahash (ch 11), Samuel at Gilgal confirmed Saul’s kingship. Thereafter, Samuel retired to Ramah to train men to carry on his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel twice had to reprove Saul, first for impatience and disobedience (1 Sm 13:5-14), and then for disobeying the express command of the Lord (15:20-23), who rejected him as king. Samuel was then sent to the home of Jesse in Bethlehem, where he anointed David as the chosen one of the Lord (16:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 25:1 is a brief account of Samuel’s passing, when all Israel gathered together and mourned for him. He was buried in Ramah. The only subsequent mention of Samuel is in 1 Samuel 28. Summoned by the witch of Endor at Saul’s request, Samuel announced that on the following day Saul and his sons would die in battle (vv 4-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Character\">Character<\/p>\n<p>Samuel overcame many problems through piety, perseverance, and dedication to the service of the Lord. His overriding concern was for the good of his people. Wise and courageous, he boldly rebuked king, elders, and people when necessary, always from the sure ground of the revealed will of God.<\/p>\n<p>While Samuel served as judge and priest, he was preeminently a prophet. Through his ministry the spiritual life of the Israelites improved. In inaugurating the monarchy, he led the people from tribal disunity to national solidarity. He appointed gatekeepers to the tent of meeting (1 Chr 9:17-26), organized observance of the Passover so memorably that it was still spoken about in Josiah’s day (2 Chr 35:18), put into writing how a king and his kingdom should be (1 Sm 10:25), and penned “The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer” (1 Chr 29:29).<\/p>\n<p>Samuel well deserves a place among the great men of faith (Heb 11:32). He was the last of the judges (1 Sm 7:6, 15-17) and the first of the prophets (1 Sm 3:20; Acts 3:24; 13:20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Samuel, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Last of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PersonalHistory\">Personal History<\/p>\n<p>Samuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr 6:26) and a resident in Ramah, territory of Ephraim. His mother, Hannah, was unable to bear children early in their marriage. Elkanah had a second wife, Peninnah.<\/p>\n<p>On a visit to Shiloh, Hannah prayed in the sanctuary (1 Sm 1:6-11), vowing that, if the Lord would give her a son, she would dedicate him as a Nazirite (Nm 6:1-21) to God’s service for life. The Lord heard Hannah’s prayer and granted her request. She had no other children until after Samuel’s dedication.<\/p>\n<p>When Samuel was presented to Eli and began his service in the sanctuary, he bowed before the Lord and “worshiped the <span>Lord<\/span> there” (1 Sm 1:28). Three ingredients—a feeling of worth, a knowledge of his parents’ love (cf. 2:19), and a sense of purpose—laid the foundation of his personality and his future accomplishments.<\/p>\n<p>Further proof of Samuel’s valuable early training is evidenced in 1 Samuel 2. Eli’s sons had followed the licentious practices of the pagan religions about them. Eli was old, indulgent, and powerless to restrain them. Samuel neither developed irreverence for Eli nor followed his sons in the path of evil. God determined to judge Eli and his house for their sins. When God announced his purpose to Samuel, Samuel responded with reverence and respect. His personal and spiritual growth indicated that he had been marked out as a future prophet of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p> When everyone did what was right in his or her own eyes (cf. Jgs 17:6; 21:25), God allowed an adjacent nation to serve as his instrument to chasten his people, until a judge arose to deliver them. When the Philistines again invaded the land (1 Sm 4–6), the Israelites mustered their army at Ebenezer, only to be defeated. Believing that the ark of the covenant would guarantee success, they sent to Shiloh for it. The next day the Israelites were again defeated and the ark captured. When this news reached Eli, he fell from his stool and died.<\/p>\n<p>Twenty years elapsed before Samuel’s name is mentioned again (1 Sm 7:2-3). Evidently, following the destruction of Shiloh (cf. Jer 7:12-14; 26:6, 9; Ps 78:60), he lived in Ramah and went on annual preaching missions that included Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, “judging” the people in these places (cf. Dt 16:18-22; 17:8-13). Samuel probably also founded “schools of the prophets” during this period. Schools were established at Bethel (1 Sm 10:5; 2 Kgs 2:3), Gilgal (2 Kgs 4:38), Ramah (1 Sm 19:20), and elsewhere (2 Kgs 2:5), perhaps as a natural outgrowth of Samuel’s ministry.<\/p>\n<p>After a 20-year ministry, Samuel thought it timely to move toward spiritual and national unification. He convened a meeting at Mizpah (1 Sm 7). There, with a symbolic rite expressive of deep humiliation and in keeping with the libations of a treaty, the Israelites poured out water on the ground, fasted, and prayed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines mistook the nature of the convocation and decided to attack the defenseless worshipers, who entreated Samuel to pray for them. He offered a sacrifice and the Lord sent a violent thunderstorm, causing the invaders to flee in panic. The pursuing Israelites won a significant victory at Ebenezer (1 Sm 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>In Samuel’s declining years, the elders rejected his leadership in favor of a king (1 Sm 8). Following earnest prayer, he received new direction from the Lord, acceded to their request, and later anointed Saul prince over God’s people. Samuel then summoned the Israelites to Mizpah, where God’s choice was made official, and Saul was hailed as king. Following Saul’s victory over Nahash (ch 11), Samuel at Gilgal confirmed Saul’s kingship. Thereafter, Samuel retired to Ramah to train men to carry on his ministry.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel twice had to reprove Saul, first for impatience and disobedience (1 Sm 13:5-14), and then for disobeying the express command of the Lord (15:20-23), who rejected him as king. Samuel was then sent to the home of Jesse in Bethlehem, where he anointed David as the chosen one of the Lord (16:1-13).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 25:1 is a brief account of Samuel’s passing, when all Israel gathered together and mourned for him. He was buried in Ramah. The only subsequent mention of Samuel is in 1 Samuel 28. Summoned by the witch of Endor at Saul’s request, Samuel announced that on the following day Saul and his sons would die in battle (vv 4-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Character\">Character<\/p>\n<p>Samuel overcame many problems through piety, perseverance, and dedication to the service of the Lord. His overriding concern was for the good of his people. Wise and courageous, he boldly rebuked king, elders, and people when necessary, always from the sure ground of the revealed will of God.<\/p>\n<p>While Samuel served as judge and priest, he was preeminently a prophet. Through his ministry the spiritual life of the Israelites improved. In inaugurating the monarchy, he led the people from tribal disunity to national solidarity. He appointed gatekeepers to the tent of meeting (1 Chr 9:17-26), organized observance of the Passover so memorably that it was still spoken about in Josiah’s day (2 Chr 35:18), put into writing how a king and his kingdom should be (1 Sm 10:25), and penned “The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer” (1 Chr 29:29).<\/p>\n<p>Samuel well deserves a place among the great men of faith (Heb 11:32). He was the last of the judges (1 Sm 7:6, 15-17) and the first of the prophets (1 Sm 3:20; Acts 3:24; 13:20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Samuel, Books of First and Second.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMUEL (Person) Last of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth. Personal History Samuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr ...","summary_en":"SAMUEL (Person) Last of the judges, his name means “name of God” or “his name is El” (El is the name of the God of strength and power). The play on words in 1 Samuel 1:20 (cf. Ex 2:10) is not intended to be an explanation of the meaning of Samuel’s name; Hannah’s words recall only her prayer and the circumstances surrounding her son’s birth. Personal History Samuel’s parents were a devout couple who went annually to the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sm 1:3). His father, Elkanah, was a Levite (1 Chr ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33790,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Samuel","title_en":"Books of First and Second Samuel","content_ro":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\n<p>These books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century <span>BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century <span>AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>Even though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\n<p>It has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\n<p>There are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\n<p>God granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\n<p>In a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>Twenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\n<p>After the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>When Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\n<p>The victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the <span>Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\n<p>In the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\n<p>David then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>From Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\n<p>Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>David and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\n<p>While David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>While hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\n<p>David was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>For a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\n<p>David eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>The Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\n<p>Upon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\n<p>As had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>Subsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\n<p>Although David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\n<p>After Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\n<p>Recognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>It soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\n<p>David was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\n<p>Remembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\n<p>During a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\n<p>Absalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\n<p>In the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>At some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\n<p>In this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\n<p>In a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>In a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\n<p>This pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\n<p>These books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century <span>BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century <span>AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>Even though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\n<p>It has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\n<p>There are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\n<p>God granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\n<p>In a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>Twenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\n<p>After the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>When Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\n<p>The victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the <span>Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\n<p>In the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\n<p>David then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>From Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\n<p>Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>David and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\n<p>While David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>While hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\n<p>David was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>For a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\n<p>David eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>The Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\n<p>Upon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\n<p>As had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>Subsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\n<p>Although David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\n<p>After Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\n<p>Recognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>It soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\n<p>David was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\n<p>Remembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\n<p>During a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\n<p>Absalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\n<p>In the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>At some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\n<p>In this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\n<p>In a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>In a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\n<p>This pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","summary_en":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34008,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Saul","title_en":"Saul","content_ro":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","summary_en":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38168,"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":46174,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","summary_en":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46175,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","summary_en":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73800,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","summary_en":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73801,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","summary_en":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101426,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","summary_en":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101427,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","summary_en":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129052,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1-15<\/strong> Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","summary_en":"11:1-15 Saul’s kingship was confirmed through a military victory, the very reason the people wanted a king (8:20).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129053,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:1<\/strong> <em>Ammon<\/em> (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • <em>Make a treaty with us:<\/em> Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","summary_en":"11:1 Ammon (see Gen 19:38), located on the east side of the Jordan, represented a threat to Israel similar to the Philistines to the southwest (see also Judg 10:6–11:33). • Make a treaty with us: Cp. Josh 9; 2 Sam 10:19.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":14682,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gouging","title_en":"Gouging","content_ro":"<h3>GOUGING<\/h3>\n<p>Common practice among the Philistines, Amorites, Babylonians, and other nations surrounding Israel (Jgs 16:21; 2 Kgs 25:7) of forcibly removing the eyes. The practice was intended not only to disable but also to bring extreme disgrace upon the person (1 Sm 11:2). Although the Israelites seem to have known about it from their sojourn in Egypt (Nm 16:14), there is no evidence that it was a common practice in Israel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Criminal Law and Punishment.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOUGING<\/h3>\n<p>Common practice among the Philistines, Amorites, Babylonians, and other nations surrounding Israel (Jgs 16:21; 2 Kgs 25:7) of forcibly removing the eyes. The practice was intended not only to disable but also to bring extreme disgrace upon the person (1 Sm 11:2). Although the Israelites seem to have known about it from their sojourn in Egypt (Nm 16:14), there is no evidence that it was a common practice in Israel.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Criminal Law and Punishment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOUGING Common practice among the Philistines, Amorites, Babylonians, and other nations surrounding Israel (Jgs 16:21; 2 Kgs 25:7) of forcibly removing the eyes. The practice was intended not only to disable but also to bring extreme disgrace upon the person (1 Sm 11:2). Although the Israelites seem to have known about it from their sojourn in Egypt (Nm 16:14), there is no evidence that it was a common practice in Israel. See also Criminal Law and Punishment.","summary_en":"GOUGING Common practice among the Philistines, Amorites, Babylonians, and other nations surrounding Israel (Jgs 16:21; 2 Kgs 25:7) of forcibly removing the eyes. The practice was intended not only to disable but also to bring extreme disgrace upon the person (1 Sm 11:2). Although the Israelites seem to have known about it from their sojourn in Egypt (Nm 16:14), there is no evidence that it was a common practice in Israel. See also Criminal Law and Punishment.","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46176,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","summary_en":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73802,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","summary_en":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101428,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","summary_en":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129054,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:2<\/strong> <em>gouge out the right eye:<\/em> Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","summary_en":"11:2 gouge out the right eye: Mutilation of captured soldiers was a common practice in the ancient Near East. These disfigured soldiers would have lost all depth perception, seriously curtailing their potential for fighting in a revolt.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":25349,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Messenger","title_en":"Messenger","content_ro":"<h3>MESSENGER<\/h3>\n<p>One who carries a message, a herald. The word “messenger” is used in the Bible in four ways.<\/p>\n<li>1. The word is used of messengers carrying messages from one person to another. Such messengers might bring news (2 Sm 11:22), requests or demands (1 Sm 11:3; 16:19), or act as envoys of one nation to another (Is 37:9). In the NT we read of messengers of the churches (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). The blessing of a good messenger is spoken of in Proverbs 25:13: “Faithful messengers are as refreshing as snow in the heat of summer. They revive the spirit of their employer” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>2. The word is used of messengers bringing messages from God. Israel was intended to be God’s messenger but often showed herself blind and deaf (Is 42:19). Prophets (Hg 1:13) and priests (Mal 2:7) were God’s messengers. God sent many such messengers to his people, even though they were often unheeded (2 Chr 36:15-16). In Malachi 3:1 we have the prophecy of a special messenger, “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. Then the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger of the covenant, whom you look for so eagerly, is surely coming” (<span>nlt<\/span>). This verse is quoted in the NT in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27 as fulfilled in John the Baptist.<\/li>\n<li>3. In both the OT and NT the most common word for “messenger” is also that for “angel.” God’s angels are distinctively his messengers. <em>See<\/em> Angel.<\/li>\n<li>4. The word is used in a metaphorical sense, as in Proverbs 16:14, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death” (<span>kjv<\/span>), and in 2 Corinthians 12:7, where Paul’s constant physical ailment is called “a messenger from Satan to torment” him.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MESSENGER<\/h3>\n<p>One who carries a message, a herald. The word “messenger” is used in the Bible in four ways.<\/p>\n<li>1. The word is used of messengers carrying messages from one person to another. Such messengers might bring news (2 Sm 11:22), requests or demands (1 Sm 11:3; 16:19), or act as envoys of one nation to another (Is 37:9). In the NT we read of messengers of the churches (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). The blessing of a good messenger is spoken of in Proverbs 25:13: “Faithful messengers are as refreshing as snow in the heat of summer. They revive the spirit of their employer” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/li>\n<li>2. The word is used of messengers bringing messages from God. Israel was intended to be God’s messenger but often showed herself blind and deaf (Is 42:19). Prophets (Hg 1:13) and priests (Mal 2:7) were God’s messengers. God sent many such messengers to his people, even though they were often unheeded (2 Chr 36:15-16). In Malachi 3:1 we have the prophecy of a special messenger, “Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. Then the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger of the covenant, whom you look for so eagerly, is surely coming” (<span>nlt<\/span>). This verse is quoted in the NT in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 7:27 as fulfilled in John the Baptist.<\/li>\n<li>3. In both the OT and NT the most common word for “messenger” is also that for “angel.” God’s angels are distinctively his messengers. <em>See<\/em> Angel.<\/li>\n<li>4. The word is used in a metaphorical sense, as in Proverbs 16:14, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death” (<span>kjv<\/span>), and in 2 Corinthians 12:7, where Paul’s constant physical ailment is called “a messenger from Satan to torment” him.<\/li>","summary_ro":"MESSENGER One who carries a message, a herald. The word “messenger” is used in the Bible in four ways. 1. The word is used of messengers carrying messages from one person to another. Such messengers might bring news (2 Sm 11:22), requests or demands (1 Sm 11:3; 16:19), or act as envoys of one nation to another (Is 37:9). In the NT we read of messengers of the churches (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). The blessing of a good messenger is spoken of in Proverbs 25:13: “Faithful messengers are as refreshi...","summary_en":"MESSENGER One who carries a message, a herald. The word “messenger” is used in the Bible in four ways. 1. The word is used of messengers carrying messages from one person to another. Such messengers might bring news (2 Sm 11:22), requests or demands (1 Sm 11:3; 16:19), or act as envoys of one nation to another (Is 37:9). In the NT we read of messengers of the churches (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). The blessing of a good messenger is spoken of in Proverbs 25:13: “Faithful messengers are as refreshi...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46177,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","summary_en":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73803,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","summary_en":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101429,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","summary_en":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129055,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:3<\/strong> Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of <em>seven days,<\/em> reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","summary_en":"11:3 Nahash agreed to grant a reprieve of seven days, reflecting his arrogant confidence of victory and his desire to humiliate Israel as much as possible.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":13759,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gibeah","title_en":"Gibeah","content_ro":"<h3>GIBEAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos 18:28, <span>kjv<\/span> “Gibeath”) and comes to prominence in the biblical narrative as a result of the atrocity recounted in Judges 19–21 of the Levite and his concubine.<\/li>\n<p>Gibeah was also noted as the home of Saul (1 Sm 10:26). After his anointing as king of Israel, Saul returned to Gibeah, which probably remained his home and his capital (10:26; 22:6; 23:19).<\/p>\n<p>The site of ancient Gibeah has been generally identified as the modern Tell el-Ful. The OT references place Gibeah north of Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and Ramah, and situated near the primary south-north road through the hill country (Jgs 19:11-19). Tell el-Ful is about three and a half miles (5.6 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and is situated on one of the highest areas in that mountain range. Excavations reveal that an early Israelite village was there about the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> and was destroyed by fire. Probably during the 11th century a stone fortress was built, and its corner tower is still evident. It probably was the citadel of Saul and his royal residence. A second fortress was built about 1000 <span>BC<\/span> but fell into disuse when David established the Israelite capital at Jerusalem. It then served as an outpost for the capital city. The tower was alternately destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries until its final destruction in the war between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Josephus wrote that a village existed at the site of Gibeah during the Roman period, but it finally ceased to exist with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<li>3. Town in the hills of Ephraim that was given to Phinehas, son of Eleazar. It was the burial site of Eleazar (Jos 24:33). An addition to the Septuagint indicates that Phinehas was also buried here. Its exact location is unknown, and several sites have been suggested: Nibi Saleh, about six miles (9.7 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; Jibia, four miles (6.5 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; et-Tell, northeast of Jifna and south of Sinjil; and Awertah, near Shechem.<\/li>\n<li>4. Gibeath-elohim (1 Sm 10:5, <span>rsv<\/span>; <span>kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; <span>nlt<\/span> “Gibeah of God”). At this site Samuel, following Saul’s anointing as king, predicted that Saul would meet a company of prophets and would prophesy with them. This was to be a sign of God’s selection of Saul as Israel’s king. Some have suggested that this is the same place as Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul, but the context suggests that Saul reached this place before he arrived at his home.<\/li>\n<li>5. Hill near Kiriath-jearim, where the ark of the covenant was housed by Abinadab after its return from the Philistines and until it was moved by David to the house of Obed-edom (2 Sm 6:1-4).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GIBEAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel.<\/li>\n<li>2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos 18:28, <span>kjv<\/span> “Gibeath”) and comes to prominence in the biblical narrative as a result of the atrocity recounted in Judges 19–21 of the Levite and his concubine.<\/li>\n<p>Gibeah was also noted as the home of Saul (1 Sm 10:26). After his anointing as king of Israel, Saul returned to Gibeah, which probably remained his home and his capital (10:26; 22:6; 23:19).<\/p>\n<p>The site of ancient Gibeah has been generally identified as the modern Tell el-Ful. The OT references place Gibeah north of Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and Ramah, and situated near the primary south-north road through the hill country (Jgs 19:11-19). Tell el-Ful is about three and a half miles (5.6 kilometers) north of Jerusalem and is situated on one of the highest areas in that mountain range. Excavations reveal that an early Israelite village was there about the 12th century <span>BC<\/span> and was destroyed by fire. Probably during the 11th century a stone fortress was built, and its corner tower is still evident. It probably was the citadel of Saul and his royal residence. A second fortress was built about 1000 <span>BC<\/span> but fell into disuse when David established the Israelite capital at Jerusalem. It then served as an outpost for the capital city. The tower was alternately destroyed and rebuilt through the centuries until its final destruction in the war between Antiochus III and Ptolemy V. Josephus wrote that a village existed at the site of Gibeah during the Roman period, but it finally ceased to exist with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (<span>AD<\/span> 70).<\/p>\n<li>3. Town in the hills of Ephraim that was given to Phinehas, son of Eleazar. It was the burial site of Eleazar (Jos 24:33). An addition to the Septuagint indicates that Phinehas was also buried here. Its exact location is unknown, and several sites have been suggested: Nibi Saleh, about six miles (9.7 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; Jibia, four miles (6.5 kilometers) northwest of Jifna; et-Tell, northeast of Jifna and south of Sinjil; and Awertah, near Shechem.<\/li>\n<li>4. Gibeath-elohim (1 Sm 10:5, <span>rsv<\/span>; <span>kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; <span>nlt<\/span> “Gibeah of God”). At this site Samuel, following Saul’s anointing as king, predicted that Saul would meet a company of prophets and would prophesy with them. This was to be a sign of God’s selection of Saul as Israel’s king. Some have suggested that this is the same place as Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul, but the context suggests that Saul reached this place before he arrived at his home.<\/li>\n<li>5. Hill near Kiriath-jearim, where the ark of the covenant was housed by Abinadab after its return from the Philistines and until it was moved by David to the house of Obed-edom (2 Sm 6:1-4).<\/li>","summary_ro":"GIBEAH 1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel. 2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos...","summary_en":"GIBEAH 1. Town in the hill country of Judah (Jos 15:57). Its exact location is uncertain. Gibeah is listed as being among other towns located in the section of Judah southeast of Hebron and probably was in the fertile plateau containing Maon, Ziph, and Carmel. 2. Town in the province of Benjamin, also called “Gibeah of Saul” (1 Sm 11:4; 15:34; Is 10:29), and its inhabitants are called Gibeathites (1 Chr 12:3). It is first mentioned in the description of the territory assigned to Benjamin (Jos...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":36053,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Spirit of God","title_en":"Spirit of God","content_ro":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SPIRIT OF GOD<\/h3>\n<p>Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">ruach<\/span><em>;<\/em> Greek, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">pneuma<\/span>) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheOldTestament\">In the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translated “Spirit” in Gn 1:2) that caused the waters of the Flood to subside (8:1). A wind from God blew locusts over Egypt (Ex 10:13) and quail over the camp of Israel. The blast of his nostrils separated the waters of the Red Sea at the exodus (14:21).<\/p>\n<p>Second, it was the breath of God that made man a living being (Gn 2:7). It is one of the earliest perceptions of Hebrew faith that humans live only because of the stirring of the divine breath or spirit within them (Gn 6:3; Jb 33:4; 34:14-15; Ps 104:29-30). Later, a clearer distinction was drawn between divine Spirit and human spirit, and between spirit and soul, but at the earliest stage these were all more or less perceived to be synonymous manifestations of the same divine power, the source of all life—animal as well as human (Gn 7:15, 22; see Eccl 3:19-21).<\/p>\n<p>Third, there were occasions when this divine power seemed to overtake and possess an individual fully, so that his or her words or actions far transcended those of normal behavior. Such a person was clearly marked as an agent of God’s purpose and given respect. This was apparently how leaders were recognized in the premonarchy period—Othniel (Jgs 3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and the first king, Saul (1 Sm 11:6), as well. So, too, the earliest prophets were those whose inspiration came in ecstasy (1 Sm 19:20-24).<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier stages of Hebrew thought, ecstatic experience was seen as the direct effect of divine power. This was true even when the ecstasy was recognized as evil in character, as in the case of Saul’s seizure by the Spirit (1 Sm 16:14-16). A spirit from God could be for evil as well as for good (see Jgs 9:23; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).<\/p>\n<h5>In the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\n<p>For Isaiah, the spirit was that which characterized God and distinguished him and his actions from human affairs (Is 31:3). Later, the adjective “holy” appeared as that which distinguished the Spirit of God from any other spirit, human or divine (Ps 51:11; Is 63:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>The problem of false prophecy emphasized the danger of assuming that every message delivered in ecstasy was the word of the Lord. Thus, tests of prophecy evaluated the content of the message delivered or the character of the prophet’s life, not the degree or quality of inspiration (see Dt 13:1-5; 18:22; Jer 23:14; Mi 3:5). This sense of a need to discriminate between true and false inspiration and to distinguish the word of God from the merely ecstatic oracle may help to explain the otherwise puzzling reluctance of the major eighth- and seventh-century <span>BC<\/span> prophets to attribute their inspiration to the Spirit.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Exilic and Postexilic Writings<\/h5>\n<p>In exilic and postexilic literature, the role of the Spirit is narrowed to two major functions: that of the prophetic Spirit and that of the Spirit of the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The later prophets again spoke of the Spirit in explicit terms as the inspirer of prophecy (see Ez 3:1-4, 22-24; Hg 2:5; Zec 4:6). As they looked back to the preexilic period, these prophets freely attributed the inspiration of “the former prophets” to the Spirit as well (Zec 7:12).<\/p>\n<p>This tendency to exalt the Spirit’s role as the inspirer of prophecy became steadily stronger in the period between the OT and NT, until in rabbinic Judaism the Spirit was almost exclusively the inspirer of the prophetic writings now regarded as Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>The other understanding of the Spirit’s role during exilic and postexilic times was that the Spirit would be the manifestation of the power of God in the age to come. That eschatological hope of divine power effecting a final cleansing and a renewed creation is rooted principally in Isaiah’s prophecies (Is 4:4; 32:15; 44:3-4). Isaiah speaks of one anointed by the Spirit to accomplish complete and final salvation (11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Elsewhere, the same longing is expressed in terms of the Spirit being freely dispensed to all Israel (Ez 39:29; Jl 2:28-29; Zec 12:10) in the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36:26-27).<\/p>\n<p>In the period prior to Jesus, the understanding of the Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy and as the Spirit of the age to come had developed into the widespread dogma that the Spirit was no longer to be experienced in the present. The Spirit had been known in the past as the inspirer of prophetic writings, but after Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Spirit had withdrawn (1 Macc 4:44-46; 9:27; 2 Bar 85:1-3; see also Ps 74:9; Zec 13:2-6). The Spirit would be known again in the age of the Messiah, but in the interim the Spirit was absent from Israel. Even the great Hillel (learned Jewish leader and teacher, 60? <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 20?), a near contemporary of Jesus, had not received the Spirit—though if anyone was worthy of the Spirit, it was he. There is a tradition that at a meeting of Hillel and other wise men, a voice from heaven said, “Among those here present is one who would have deserved the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, if his time had been worthy of it.” The wise men all looked at Hillel.<\/p>\n<p>The consequence of this accepted dearth of the Spirit was that the Spirit in effect became subordinated to the law. The Spirit was the inspirer of the law, but since the Spirit could no longer be experienced directly, the law became the sole voice of the Spirit. It was this increasing dominance of the law and its authoritative interpreters that provided the background for the mission of Jesus and the initial spread of Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"IntheNewTestament\">In the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>If we are to understand the NT’s teaching on the Spirit, we must recognize both its continuity and discontinuity with the OT. At many points NT usage cannot be fully understood except against the background of OT concepts or passages. For example, the ambiguity of John 3:8 (“wind,” “Spirit”), 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (“breath”), and Revelation 11:11 (“breath of life”) takes us back to the basic Hebrew meanings of “spirit.” Acts 8:39 and Revelation 17:3 and 21:10 reflect the same conception of the Spirit that we find in 1 Kings 18:12, 2 Kings 2:16, and Ezekiel 3:14. The NT writers generally share the rabbinic view that Scripture has the authority of the Spirit behind it (see Mk 12:36; Acts 28:25; Heb 3:7; 2 Pt 1:21). The principal continuity is that the NT brings the fulfillment of what the OT writers looked forward to. At the same time, Christianity is not simply fulfilled Judaism. Jesus’ coming and his giving of his Spirit to live within his believers marks off the new faith as something new and distinct.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of the New Age<\/h5>\n<p>The most striking feature of Jesus’ ministry and of the message of the earliest Christians was their conviction and proclamation that the blessings of the new age were already present, that the eschatological Spirit had already been poured out. With the exception of the Essenes at Qumran, no other group or individual within the Jewish religion of that time had dared to make such a bold claim. The prophets and the rabbis looked for a messianic age yet to come, and the apocalyptic writers warned of its imminent arrival, but none thought of it as already present. Even John the Baptist spoke only of one about to come and of the Spirit’s operation in the imminent future (Mk 1:8). But for Jesus and first-century Christians, the longed for hope was a living reality, and the claim carried with it the exciting sense of being in “the last days.” Without some recognition of that eschatological dimension of the Christians’ faith and life, we cannot understand this teaching on, and experience of, the Spirit.<\/p>\n<p>Jesus clearly thought of his teachings and healings as fulfillment of the prophetic hope (Mt 12:41-42; 13:16-17; Lk 17:20-21). In particular, he saw himself as the one anointed by the Spirit to provide salvation (Mt 5:3-6; 11:5; Lk 4:17-19). So, too, Jesus understood his exorcisms as the effect of the power of God and as manifestations of the end-time rule of God (Mt 12:27-28; Mk 3:22-26). The Gospel writers, especially Luke, emphasize the eschatological character of Jesus’ life and ministry by stressing the role of the Spirit in his birth (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35, 41, 67; 2:25-27), his baptism (Mk 1:9-10; Acts 10:38), and his ministry (Mt 4:1; 12:18; Mk 1:12; Lk 4:1, 14; 10:21; Jn 3:34).<\/p>\n<p>The Christian church began with the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Christ’s resurrection (Jn 20:22), followed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost “in the last days.” The overwhelming experience of vision and inspired utterance was taken as proof positive that the new age prophesied by Joel had now arrived (Acts 2:2-5, 17-18). Similarly, in Hebrews the gift of the Spirit is spoken of as “the powers of the age to come” (Heb 6:4-5). More striking still is Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as the guarantee of God’s complete salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:13-14), and as the first installment of the believer’s inheritance of God’s kingdom (Rom 8:15-17; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 15:42-50; Gal 4:6-7; 5:16-18, 21-23; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit is here again thought of as the power of the age to come, as that power (which will characterize God’s rule at the end of time) already shaping and transforming the lives of believers.<\/p>\n<p>For Paul, this means also that the gift of the Spirit is but the beginning of a lifelong process that will not end until the believer’s whole person is brought under the Spirit’s power (Rom 8:11, 23; 1 Cor 15:44-49; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:1-5). It also means that the present experience of faith is one of lifelong tension between what God has already begun to bring about in the believer’s life and what has not yet been brought under God’s grace (Phil 1:6). It is this tension between life “in the Spirit” and life “in the flesh” (see Gal 2:20) that comes to poignant expression in Romans 7:24 and 2 Corinthians 5:2-4.<\/p>\n<h5>The Spirit of New Life<\/h5>\n<p>Since the Spirit is the mark of the new age, it is not surprising that the NT writers understood the gift of the Spirit to be that which brings an individual into the new age. John the Baptist described the way the coming one would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mt 3:11). According to Acts 1:5 and 11:16, this imagery was taken up by Jesus, and the promise is seen as fulfilled at Pentecost—the outpouring of the Spirit here being understood as the risen Christ’s action in drawing his disciples into the new age (Acts 2:17, 33).<\/p>\n<p>It seems to be one of Luke’s aims in the book of Acts to highlight the central importance of the gift of the Spirit in conversion-initiation—it is that decisive “gift of the Holy Spirit” that makes one a Christian (Acts 2:38-39). People could have been followers of Jesus on earth, but it was only when they received the gift of the Spirit that they could be said to have “believed in the Lord Jesus Christ” (11:16-17). When the Spirit’s presence was manifested in and upon a person’s life, that was recognized by Peter as proof enough that God had accepted that person, even though he or she had not yet made any formal profession of faith or been baptized (10:44-48; 11:15-18; 15:7-9). So too Apollos, already aglow with the Spirit (18:25), even though his knowledge of “the way of God” was slightly defective (vv 24-26), apparently was not required to supplement his “baptism of John” with Christian baptism. However, the 12 so-called disciples at Ephesus proved by their very ignorance of the Spirit that they were not yet disciples of the Lord Jesus (19:1-6). Paul asked these 12 men, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” (19:2).<\/p>\n<p>This accords with Paul’s emphasis in his letters. Belief and reception of the Spirit go together: to receive the Spirit is to begin the Christian life (Gal 3:2-3); to be baptized in the Spirit is to become a member of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13); to “have the Spirit of Christ” is to belong to Christ (Rom 8:9-11); to receive the Spirit is tantamount to becoming a child of God (Rom 8:14-17; Gal 4:6-7). The Spirit so characterizes the new age and the life of the new age that only the gift of the Spirit can bring a person into the new age to experience the life of the new age. For the Spirit is distinctively and peculiarly the life-giver; the Spirit indeed <em>is<\/em> the life of the new age (Rom 8:2, 6, 10; 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 5:25).<\/p>\n<p>In just the same way in John’s writings, the Spirit is characteristically the life-giving Spirit (Jn 6:63), the power from above, the seed of divine life that brings about the new birth (Jn 3:3-8; 1 Jn 3:9), and a river of living water that brings life when one believes in Christ (Jn 7:37-39; so also 4:10, 14). Or again, reception of the Spirit in John 20:22 is depicted as a new creation analogous to Genesis 2:7. Consequently, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13, possession and experience of the Spirit count as one of the “tests of life” listed in that letter.<\/p>\n<h5>Manifestations of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It will be clear from what has already been said that when the first Christians, like the ancient Hebrews, spoke of the Spirit, they were thinking of experiences of divine power. In the NT, as in the OT, “Spirit” is the word used to explain the experience of new life and vitality (see above), of liberation from legalism (e.g., Rom 8:2; 2 Cor 3:17), of spiritual refreshing and renewal (cf. e.g., Is 32:15; Ez 39:29 with Jn 7:37-39; Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:13; 1 Tm 3:5-6). It is important to realize how wide a range of experiences were attributed to the Spirit: ecstatic experiences (Acts 2:24; 10:43-47; 19:6; cf. 10:10; 22:17—“in ecstasy”; 2 Cor 12:1-4; Rv 1:10), emotional experiences (e.g., love—Rom 5:5; joy—Acts 13:52; 1 Thes 1:6; see also Gal 5:22; Phil 2:1-2), experiences of illumination (2 Cor 3:14-17; Eph 1:17-18; Heb 6:4-5; 1 Jn 2:20-21), and experiences issuing in moral transformation (1 Cor 6:9-11). Likewise, when Paul speaks of spiritual gifts, called <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">charismata<\/span> (acts or words that bring divine grace to concrete expression), he evidently has a wide range of actual events in mind: inspired speech (1 Cor 12:8-10; 1 Thes 1:5), miracles and healings (1 Cor 12:9; Gal 3:5; cf. Heb 2:4), and various acts of service and help, of counsel and administration, and of aid and mercy (Rom 12:7-8; 1 Cor 12:28).<\/p>\n<p>In talking thus of the Spirit in terms of experience, we should not overemphasize particular experiences or manifestations, as though earliest Christianity consisted of a sequence of mountaintop experiences or spiritual highs. There clearly were such experiences, indeed a wide range of experiences, but no one experience is singled out to be sought by all (except prophecy). There is no distinctively second (or third) experience of the Spirit in the NT, and Paul warned against overvaluing particular manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor 14:6-19; 2 Cor 12:1-10; cf. Mk 8:11-13). Where particular experiences are valued, it is as manifestations of a more sustained experience, particular expressions of an underlying relationship (cf. Acts 6:3-5; 11:24—“full of the Spirit”; Eph 5:18). What we are in touch with here is the vigor of the experiential dimension of earliest Christianity. If the Spirit is the breath of the new life in Christ (cf. Ez 37:9-10, 14; Jn 20:22; 1 Cor 15:45), then presumably the analogy extends further, and the experience of the Spirit is like the experience of breathing: one is not conscious of it all the time, but if one is not conscious of it, at least sometimes, something is wrong.<\/p>\n<h5>The Fellowship of the Spirit<\/h5>\n<p>It was out of this shared experience of the Spirit that the earliest Christian community grew and developed, for this is what “the fellowship [<span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">koinonia<\/span>] of the Spirit” properly means: common participation in the same Spirit (Phil 2:1; cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:4-9). It was the gift of the Spirit that brought those in Samaria, Caesarea, and elsewhere effectively into the community of the Spirit (Act 8, 10). So also, it was the experience of the one Spirit that provided the unifying bond in the churches of Paul’s mission (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:3-4; Phil 2:1-2). Here we see the real importance of the divine manifestations of the Spirit for Paul: it is out of the diversity of these particular manifestations that the body of Christ grows in unity (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:12-17; Eph 4:4-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","summary_en":"SPIRIT OF GOD Description of God in action, God in motion. The word “spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma) is the word used from ancient times to describe and explain the experience of divine power working in, upon, and around people. In the Old Testament There are three basic meanings evident in the use of “spirit” from the earliest Hebrew writings: It was a wind from God, it was the breath of life, and it was a spirit of ecstasy. First, it was a wind from God (the same Hebrew word translat...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37168,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Theocracy*","title_en":"Theocracy*","content_ro":"<h3>THEOCRACY*<\/h3>\n<p>Form of government that acknowledges God alone as the highest political authority, whether or not he is represented by a human ruler such as a king. Thus, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 argues that a human king rules only as one designated for kingship by the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, the concept of theocratic government developed through several historical stages. A fundamental theological conception of the sons of Israel in Egypt involved the belief that Yahweh, their special God, cared enough about their plight to become personally involved in redeeming them from slavery and establishing them in freedom from all earthly rulers (specifically the pharaoh). They would then be able to serve him alone (see Ex 3:7-10; 8:1; 9:1). It is necessary to remember that the conditions of oppression described in Exodus were everyday features in the lives of Egyptian peasants. Living under the rulership of the pharaoh as a peasant implied oppression, unreasonable work assignments, loss of freedom and self-respect, and many other things. By contrast, life under the rulership of Yahweh came to signify freedom, justice, and equality.<\/p>\n<p>Upon arriving in Canaan, the young tribes encountered a system of kingship widely different from the Egyptian model but equally opprobrious. Ancient Canaanite rulers normally owned the city-state they governed, and rented out at least some of the land to their subjects. But the Israelites who occupied Canaan under Joshua were meant to be free inhabitants of the territory allotted to them and subservient to God alone.<\/p>\n<p>In the period of the judges, the idea of theocracy continued to be expressed consistently and explicitly. The various groups comprising the “sons of Israel” were not welded together into a unified body by any external political structure. Rather, acceptance of the rulership of Yahweh alone continued to function as the foundational unifying element. Thus Gideon, when asked by some to accept kingship, could say in words acceptable to virtually all Israelites, “The <span>Lord<\/span> shall rule over you” (Jgs 8:23).<\/p>\n<p>In this period, human leadership became necessary from time to time as threats arose to one or more of the tribes. These judges were regularly described as “raised up” for the specific task of averting immediate danger, but more specifically to lead the people back to the Lord (Jgs 2:16). But no judge was believed to have brought victory to Israel by means of his personal abilities. Yahweh alone was credited with having won the battle; hence, he deserved and received the loyalty of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel bridges the time of the judges and a new era of monarchy in Israel. Philistine social and military pressure was confronting the Israelite theocratic government with a challenge of enormous proportions. For roughly 200 years preceding Samuel, the Israelites and the Philistines had coexisted, if not peaceably, at least short of open warfare. During the career of Samuel, however, the Philistines inaugurated a policy of open aggression toward Israel aimed at conquest and expansion. The tribal confederacy, which for years had successfully defended one or more tribal groups, now appeared incapable of resisting the Philistines. A new governmental structure had clearly become necessary. In the minds of many influential Israelites, only a kingdom headed by a king could enable Israel to survive (see 1 Sm 8:5, 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the concept of theocracy received a severe test. Politically and militarily, a king appeared to be a wise and necessary choice. But the tradition of theocratic rule was deeply ingrained. Samuel viewed the desire for a king as rejection of the rulership of Yahweh (1 Sm 8:10-18; 10:19). On the other hand, he also appears to have received a prophetic word concerning Saul and the willingness of God to have him anointed as king (9:27–10:1).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to his prophetic anointing, Saul also received a designation from “the spirit of God” (1 Sm 11:6), which closely paralleled the experiences of earlier judges. A third ingredient to Saul’s claim to kingship was added when the people acclaimed him following a military victory over the Ammonites. Apart from the clarity of the biblical tradition that two opinions of kingship were represented among Israelites, clearly God chose the king and revealed his choice through his messenger-prophet.<\/p>\n<p>One day God’s people would no longer need a human king to rule them. This is portrayed in the book of Ezekiel (Ez 40–48), in which God would rule his people through the Zadokite priesthood. This began to be implemented through the work of Haggai and Zechariah in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. This was a particularly important feature of postexilic life and imparted a distinctive character to the Judean community. The work of Ezra made the theocracy normative for Judaism, and thereafter the priesthood exercised an important role in national life. Although the people were subjected to human rule under the Seleucids, they looked for the true king, a descendant of David. This man, the Messiah, would be the peaceful prince who would redeem Israel and bring the ancient covenantal values of justice, righteousness, and equity to fruition.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>THEOCRACY*<\/h3>\n<p>Form of government that acknowledges God alone as the highest political authority, whether or not he is represented by a human ruler such as a king. Thus, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 argues that a human king rules only as one designated for kingship by the Lord.<\/p>\n<p>In ancient Israel, the concept of theocratic government developed through several historical stages. A fundamental theological conception of the sons of Israel in Egypt involved the belief that Yahweh, their special God, cared enough about their plight to become personally involved in redeeming them from slavery and establishing them in freedom from all earthly rulers (specifically the pharaoh). They would then be able to serve him alone (see Ex 3:7-10; 8:1; 9:1). It is necessary to remember that the conditions of oppression described in Exodus were everyday features in the lives of Egyptian peasants. Living under the rulership of the pharaoh as a peasant implied oppression, unreasonable work assignments, loss of freedom and self-respect, and many other things. By contrast, life under the rulership of Yahweh came to signify freedom, justice, and equality.<\/p>\n<p>Upon arriving in Canaan, the young tribes encountered a system of kingship widely different from the Egyptian model but equally opprobrious. Ancient Canaanite rulers normally owned the city-state they governed, and rented out at least some of the land to their subjects. But the Israelites who occupied Canaan under Joshua were meant to be free inhabitants of the territory allotted to them and subservient to God alone.<\/p>\n<p>In the period of the judges, the idea of theocracy continued to be expressed consistently and explicitly. The various groups comprising the “sons of Israel” were not welded together into a unified body by any external political structure. Rather, acceptance of the rulership of Yahweh alone continued to function as the foundational unifying element. Thus Gideon, when asked by some to accept kingship, could say in words acceptable to virtually all Israelites, “The <span>Lord<\/span> shall rule over you” (Jgs 8:23).<\/p>\n<p>In this period, human leadership became necessary from time to time as threats arose to one or more of the tribes. These judges were regularly described as “raised up” for the specific task of averting immediate danger, but more specifically to lead the people back to the Lord (Jgs 2:16). But no judge was believed to have brought victory to Israel by means of his personal abilities. Yahweh alone was credited with having won the battle; hence, he deserved and received the loyalty of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>Samuel bridges the time of the judges and a new era of monarchy in Israel. Philistine social and military pressure was confronting the Israelite theocratic government with a challenge of enormous proportions. For roughly 200 years preceding Samuel, the Israelites and the Philistines had coexisted, if not peaceably, at least short of open warfare. During the career of Samuel, however, the Philistines inaugurated a policy of open aggression toward Israel aimed at conquest and expansion. The tribal confederacy, which for years had successfully defended one or more tribal groups, now appeared incapable of resisting the Philistines. A new governmental structure had clearly become necessary. In the minds of many influential Israelites, only a kingdom headed by a king could enable Israel to survive (see 1 Sm 8:5, 19-20).<\/p>\n<p>At this point the concept of theocracy received a severe test. Politically and militarily, a king appeared to be a wise and necessary choice. But the tradition of theocratic rule was deeply ingrained. Samuel viewed the desire for a king as rejection of the rulership of Yahweh (1 Sm 8:10-18; 10:19). On the other hand, he also appears to have received a prophetic word concerning Saul and the willingness of God to have him anointed as king (9:27–10:1).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to his prophetic anointing, Saul also received a designation from “the spirit of God” (1 Sm 11:6), which closely paralleled the experiences of earlier judges. A third ingredient to Saul’s claim to kingship was added when the people acclaimed him following a military victory over the Ammonites. Apart from the clarity of the biblical tradition that two opinions of kingship were represented among Israelites, clearly God chose the king and revealed his choice through his messenger-prophet.<\/p>\n<p>One day God’s people would no longer need a human king to rule them. This is portrayed in the book of Ezekiel (Ez 40–48), in which God would rule his people through the Zadokite priesthood. This began to be implemented through the work of Haggai and Zechariah in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. This was a particularly important feature of postexilic life and imparted a distinctive character to the Judean community. The work of Ezra made the theocracy normative for Judaism, and thereafter the priesthood exercised an important role in national life. Although the people were subjected to human rule under the Seleucids, they looked for the true king, a descendant of David. This man, the Messiah, would be the peaceful prince who would redeem Israel and bring the ancient covenantal values of justice, righteousness, and equity to fruition.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> King.<\/p>","summary_ro":"THEOCRACY* Form of government that acknowledges God alone as the highest political authority, whether or not he is represented by a human ruler such as a king. Thus, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 argues that a human king rules only as one designated for kingship by the Lord. In ancient Israel, the concept of theocratic government developed through several historical stages. A fundamental theological conception of the sons of Israel in Egypt involved the belief that Yahweh, their special God, cared eno...","summary_en":"THEOCRACY* Form of government that acknowledges God alone as the highest political authority, whether or not he is represented by a human ruler such as a king. Thus, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 argues that a human king rules only as one designated for kingship by the Lord. In ancient Israel, the concept of theocratic government developed through several historical stages. A fundamental theological conception of the sons of Israel in Egypt involved the belief that Yahweh, their special God, cared eno...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61228,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88854,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116480,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144106,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence","title_en":"The Spirit’s Presence","content_ro":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Spirit’s Presence<\/h3>\n<p>In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel anointed David as the next king (16:13), the Spirit left Saul (16:14), who was disobedient and had been rejected by God as king (13:7-14; 15:10-29; cp. 28:15; Judg 16:20). After David had sinned with Bathsheba, he prayed to be spared this same judgment (Ps 51:11).<\/p>\n<p>In the New Testament, God’s Holy Spirit is given to all who put their faith in Christ for salvation, not just to individuals in specific roles (see Acts 2:14-21; 1 Cor 12:1-13; Eph 1:13-14). Still, the Spirit performs a similar role in equipping God’s servants to do the work that God has called them to do (see 1 Cor 12:7-10). The Old Testament departure of the Spirit from Saul tangibly demonstrates the need for the New Testament warnings not to sin against the Spirit and not to bring sorrow to the Spirit (see Mark 3:28-29; Eph 4:30; Heb 6:1-8).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 41:37-40; Exod 31:1-6; Judg 3:9-11; 6:34; 11:29; 14:5-6; 16:20-21; 1 Sam 10:1-10; 11:6-7; 16:13-23; 19:19-23; 2 Chr 20:13-19; 24:20-22; Ps 51:11-12; Isa 11:1-5; Jer 31:33-34; Joel 2:28-29; Mark 3:28-29; Acts 2:1-21; 4:31; Eph 1:13-14; 4:30; Heb 6:4-8<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","summary_en":"The Spirit’s Presence In the Old Testament, the Spirit of the Lord came upon a person or group when they were called to do a task or ordained for an office. The Spirit “came upon” the judges Othniel, Gideon, and Jephthah (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29), empowering them for service. Saul and David both received the Spirit of God when they were anointed king (1 Sam 10:1, 9-10; 16:13). The Spirit would depart when the task had been completed or when the officeholder was removed from office. When Samuel...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":2957,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Asher (Tribe)","title_en":"Asher (Tribe)","content_ro":"<h3>ASHER (T<span>ribe<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe that inhabited the fertile coastal territory when the Promised Land was divided for settlement. Asher’s allotment stretched north of Mt Carmel to a point slightly above the city of Sidon. The eastern boundary ran along the western slopes of the hills of Galilee (Jos 19:24-34). The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali were Asher’s eastern neighbors. Due south, the Carmel mountain range was a natural barrier between Asher and the tribe of Manasseh. The land of Asher was agriculturally rich and is still known for its olive groves. Economically, the people of Asher joined in maritime trade with the Phoenicians of the city of Tyre.<\/p>\n<p>As a tribe, Asher fluctuated in size. From the few who entered Egypt with their father, Jacob, the tribe grew to 41,500 adult warriors at Mt Sinai (Nm 1:40-41). At the second census in the wilderness the tribe numbered 53,400 soldiers (Nm 26:47). At the time of King David the number varied from 26,000 to 40,000 warriors (1 Chr 7:40; 12:36). Asher was never more than fifth in size among the tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The tribe joined the rest of Israel in rejecting the optimistic reports of Caleb and Joshua about the land of Canaan (Nm 13:30–14:10). As a result, that generation perished in the wilderness after 40 years of wandering (Nm 14:22-25).<\/p>\n<p>At the close of the northern campaign in the Promised Land, Joshua gave the remaining seven tribes their own territory (Jos 18:2). The fifth partition went to Asher’s descendants. Earlier, Ahihud had been chosen by God to distribute land within the territory given to Asher’s tribe (Nm 34:16, 27). Certain Levites, descendants of Gershom, were allocated cities within its borders (Jos 21:6, 30; 1 Chr 6:62, 74).<\/p>\n<p>Like all the Israelite tribes, Asher was never able to possess all of its inheritance. Failure to drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob subjected the tribe to the degradations of pagan culture (Jgs 1:31). The “unpossessed” territory of the Sidonians and the Phoenicians stretched along the coastal region for 200 miles (322 kilometers). Thus “the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out” (Jgs 1:32, <span>rsv<\/span>). It is possible that Asher’s tribe, having become a partner in the enterprises of the successful Phoenicians, lost all desire to expel them from their cities.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the Israelite judge Ehud, Israel fell into the hands of Jabin, king of Canaan. When the judge Deborah stirred up Barak to marshal Israel’s forces for battle, God gave their army a great victory and liberated them from their oppressor (Jgs 4). After the victory Deborah complained that “Asher sat unmoved at the seashore, remaining in his harbors” (Jgs 5:17, <span>nlt<\/span>). Eventually, through amalgamation, the tribe succumbed to Phoenician religious and cultural influences. Foreign invasion and pagan inroads were its downfall.<\/p>\n<p>Little is said in the Bible of the tribe’s leadership. At the time of the exodus, when the nation was organized at Mt Sinai, Pagiel the son of Ochran became tribal chief (Nm 1:13; 2:27; 7:72; 10:26). But the Bible is silent from then on about Asher’s leaders. None of the judges of Israel came from Asher, and in King David’s day the tribes of Asher and Gad were omitted from the list of the nation’s chief officers (1 Chr 27:16-22).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, there are some bright spots in Asher’s tribal history. The tribe answered the call of Gideon to drive out the Midianite enemy (Jgs 6:1-8, 35; 7:23). They rallied with the rest of the tribes of Israel to defend Saul, their first king (1 Sm 11:7). Later, 40,000 Asherites sided with David to give him Saul’s kingdom (1 Chr 12:23-36). After the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, a small remnant came to Jerusalem to observe the first Passover feast in many years (2 Chr 30:5), when King Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) invited all the tribes to assemble for the Passover (2 Chr 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT one of Asher’s descendants is mentioned, an 84-year-old widow named Anna, a prophetess. She described Jesus as “the redemption of Jerusalem” from the time of his dedication to the Lord in the temple (Lk 2:36-38).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ASHER (T<span>ribe<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite tribe that inhabited the fertile coastal territory when the Promised Land was divided for settlement. Asher’s allotment stretched north of Mt Carmel to a point slightly above the city of Sidon. The eastern boundary ran along the western slopes of the hills of Galilee (Jos 19:24-34). The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali were Asher’s eastern neighbors. Due south, the Carmel mountain range was a natural barrier between Asher and the tribe of Manasseh. The land of Asher was agriculturally rich and is still known for its olive groves. Economically, the people of Asher joined in maritime trade with the Phoenicians of the city of Tyre.<\/p>\n<p>As a tribe, Asher fluctuated in size. From the few who entered Egypt with their father, Jacob, the tribe grew to 41,500 adult warriors at Mt Sinai (Nm 1:40-41). At the second census in the wilderness the tribe numbered 53,400 soldiers (Nm 26:47). At the time of King David the number varied from 26,000 to 40,000 warriors (1 Chr 7:40; 12:36). Asher was never more than fifth in size among the tribes of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The tribe joined the rest of Israel in rejecting the optimistic reports of Caleb and Joshua about the land of Canaan (Nm 13:30–14:10). As a result, that generation perished in the wilderness after 40 years of wandering (Nm 14:22-25).<\/p>\n<p>At the close of the northern campaign in the Promised Land, Joshua gave the remaining seven tribes their own territory (Jos 18:2). The fifth partition went to Asher’s descendants. Earlier, Ahihud had been chosen by God to distribute land within the territory given to Asher’s tribe (Nm 34:16, 27). Certain Levites, descendants of Gershom, were allocated cities within its borders (Jos 21:6, 30; 1 Chr 6:62, 74).<\/p>\n<p>Like all the Israelite tribes, Asher was never able to possess all of its inheritance. Failure to drive out the inhabitants of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob subjected the tribe to the degradations of pagan culture (Jgs 1:31). The “unpossessed” territory of the Sidonians and the Phoenicians stretched along the coastal region for 200 miles (322 kilometers). Thus “the Asherites dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out” (Jgs 1:32, <span>rsv<\/span>). It is possible that Asher’s tribe, having become a partner in the enterprises of the successful Phoenicians, lost all desire to expel them from their cities.<\/p>\n<p>After the death of the Israelite judge Ehud, Israel fell into the hands of Jabin, king of Canaan. When the judge Deborah stirred up Barak to marshal Israel’s forces for battle, God gave their army a great victory and liberated them from their oppressor (Jgs 4). After the victory Deborah complained that “Asher sat unmoved at the seashore, remaining in his harbors” (Jgs 5:17, <span>nlt<\/span>). Eventually, through amalgamation, the tribe succumbed to Phoenician religious and cultural influences. Foreign invasion and pagan inroads were its downfall.<\/p>\n<p>Little is said in the Bible of the tribe’s leadership. At the time of the exodus, when the nation was organized at Mt Sinai, Pagiel the son of Ochran became tribal chief (Nm 1:13; 2:27; 7:72; 10:26). But the Bible is silent from then on about Asher’s leaders. None of the judges of Israel came from Asher, and in King David’s day the tribes of Asher and Gad were omitted from the list of the nation’s chief officers (1 Chr 27:16-22).<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, there are some bright spots in Asher’s tribal history. The tribe answered the call of Gideon to drive out the Midianite enemy (Jgs 6:1-8, 35; 7:23). They rallied with the rest of the tribes of Israel to defend Saul, their first king (1 Sm 11:7). Later, 40,000 Asherites sided with David to give him Saul’s kingdom (1 Chr 12:23-36). After the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, a small remnant came to Jerusalem to observe the first Passover feast in many years (2 Chr 30:5), when King Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) invited all the tribes to assemble for the Passover (2 Chr 30:10-11).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT one of Asher’s descendants is mentioned, an 84-year-old widow named Anna, a prophetess. She described Jesus as “the redemption of Jerusalem” from the time of his dedication to the Lord in the temple (Lk 2:36-38).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Israel, History of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ASHER (Tribe) Israelite tribe that inhabited the fertile coastal territory when the Promised Land was divided for settlement. Asher’s allotment stretched north of Mt Carmel to a point slightly above the city of Sidon. The eastern boundary ran along the western slopes of the hills of Galilee (Jos 19:24-34). The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali were Asher’s eastern neighbors. Due south, the Carmel mountain range was a natural barrier between Asher and the tribe of Manasseh. The land of Asher was ...","summary_en":"ASHER (Tribe) Israelite tribe that inhabited the fertile coastal territory when the Promised Land was divided for settlement. Asher’s allotment stretched north of Mt Carmel to a point slightly above the city of Sidon. The eastern boundary ran along the western slopes of the hills of Galilee (Jos 19:24-34). The tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali were Asher’s eastern neighbors. Due south, the Carmel mountain range was a natural barrier between Asher and the tribe of Manasseh. The land of Asher was ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46178,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","summary_en":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73804,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","summary_en":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101430,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","summary_en":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129056,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:7<\/strong> Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both <em>Saul<\/em> as king and <em>Samuel<\/em> as prophet.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","summary_en":"11:7 Not to participate would indicate rejection of the leadership of both Saul as king and Samuel as prophet.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":4615,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bezek","title_en":"Bezek","content_ro":"<h3>BEZEK<\/h3>\n<li>1. Site of a major victory for the tribes of Simeon and Judah over the Perizzites and Canaanites (Jgs 1:3-7). Adoni-bezek, which means “lord of Bezek,” was king of the city at that time. Bezek was perhaps located at Khirbet Bezqa, a few miles northwest of Jerusalem.<\/li>\n<li>2. Place where Saul gathered an army to attack the Ammonites who were troubling Jabesh-gilead (1 Sm 11:8-11). This Bezek is usually located at Khirbet Ibziq, a little south of Mt Gilboa.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BEZEK<\/h3>\n<li>1. Site of a major victory for the tribes of Simeon and Judah over the Perizzites and Canaanites (Jgs 1:3-7). Adoni-bezek, which means “lord of Bezek,” was king of the city at that time. Bezek was perhaps located at Khirbet Bezqa, a few miles northwest of Jerusalem.<\/li>\n<li>2. Place where Saul gathered an army to attack the Ammonites who were troubling Jabesh-gilead (1 Sm 11:8-11). This Bezek is usually located at Khirbet Ibziq, a little south of Mt Gilboa.<\/li>","summary_ro":"BEZEK 1. Site of a major victory for the tribes of Simeon and Judah over the Perizzites and Canaanites (Jgs 1:3-7). Adoni-bezek, which means “lord of Bezek,” was king of the city at that time. Bezek was perhaps located at Khirbet Bezqa, a few miles northwest of Jerusalem. 2. Place where Saul gathered an army to attack the Ammonites who were troubling Jabesh-gilead (1 Sm 11:8-11). This Bezek is usually located at Khirbet Ibziq, a little south of Mt Gilboa.","summary_en":"BEZEK 1. Site of a major victory for the tribes of Simeon and Judah over the Perizzites and Canaanites (Jgs 1:3-7). Adoni-bezek, which means “lord of Bezek,” was king of the city at that time. Bezek was perhaps located at Khirbet Bezqa, a few miles northwest of Jerusalem. 2. Place where Saul gathered an army to attack the Ammonites who were troubling Jabesh-gilead (1 Sm 11:8-11). This Bezek is usually located at Khirbet Ibziq, a little south of Mt Gilboa.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33755,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Samuel","title_en":"Books of First and Second Samuel","content_ro":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\n<p>These books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century <span>BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century <span>AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>Even though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\n<p>It has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\n<p>There are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\n<p>God granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\n<p>In a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>Twenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\n<p>After the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>When Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\n<p>The victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the <span>Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\n<p>In the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\n<p>David then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>From Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\n<p>Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>David and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\n<p>While David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>While hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\n<p>David was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>For a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\n<p>David eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>The Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\n<p>Upon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\n<p>As had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>Subsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\n<p>Although David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\n<p>After Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\n<p>Recognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>It soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\n<p>David was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\n<p>Remembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\n<p>During a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\n<p>Absalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\n<p>In the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>At some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\n<p>In this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\n<p>In a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>In a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\n<p>This pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\n<p>These books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century <span>BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century <span>AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>Even though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\n<p>It has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\n<p>There are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\n<p>God granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\n<p>In a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>Twenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\n<p>After the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>When Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\n<p>The victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the <span>Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\n<p>In the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\n<p>David then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>From Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\n<p>Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>David and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\n<p>While David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>While hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\n<p>David was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>For a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\n<p>David eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>The Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\n<p>Upon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\n<p>As had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>Subsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\n<p>Although David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\n<p>After Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\n<p>Recognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>It soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\n<p>David was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\n<p>Remembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\n<p>During a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\n<p>Absalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\n<p>In the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>At some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\n<p>In this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\n<p>In a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>In a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\n<p>This pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","summary_en":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46179,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:8","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","summary_en":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73805,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:8","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","summary_en":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101431,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:8","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","summary_en":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129057,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:8","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:8<\/strong> <em>Bezek<\/em> was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms <em>Israel<\/em> and <em>Judah<\/em> anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","summary_en":"11:8 Bezek was about fourteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead. • The narrator’s use of the terms Israel and Judah anticipates the later division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":20929,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joy","title_en":"Joy","content_ro":"<h3>JOY<\/h3>\n<p>Positive human condition that can be either feeling or action. The Bible uses “joy” in both senses.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JoyasaFeeling\">Joy as a Feeling<\/p>\n<p>Joy is a feeling called forth by well-being, success, or good fortune. A person automatically experiences it because of certain favorable circumstances. It cannot be commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The shepherd experienced joy when he found his lost sheep (Mt 18:13). The multitude felt it when Jesus healed a Jewish woman whom Satan had bound for 18 years (Lk 13:17). The disciples returned to Jerusalem rejoicing after Jesus’ ascension (24:52). Joy was also the feeling of the church at Antioch when its members heard the Jerusalem Council’s decision that they did not have to be circumcised to keep God’s law (Acts 15:31). Paul mentioned his joy in hearing about the obedience of the Roman Christians (Rom 16:19). He wrote to the Corinthians that love does not rejoice in wrong but rejoices in the right (1 Cor 13:6; see also 1 Sm 2:1; 11:9; 18:6; 2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 1:40; Est 9:17-22).<\/p>\n<p>Psalms 137:1-6 shows that the emotion cannot be commanded. The Jews’ captors wanted them to sing in the land of their exile, something they were unable to do. Faraway Jerusalem was their chief joy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JoyasanAction\">Joy as an Action<\/p>\n<p>There is a joy that Scripture commands. That joy is action that can be engaged in regardless of how the person feels. Proverbs 5:18 tells the reader to rejoice in the wife of his youth, without reference to what she may be like. Christ instructed his disciples to rejoice when they were persecuted, reviled, and slandered (Mt 5:11-12). The apostle Paul commanded continuous rejoicing (Phil 4:4; 1 Thes 5:16). James said Christians are to reckon it all joy when they fall into various testings because such testings produce endurance (Jas 1:2). Joy in adverse circumstances is possible only as a fruit of the Holy Spirit, who is present in every Christian (Gal 5:22).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Fruit of the Spirit.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOY<\/h3>\n<p>Positive human condition that can be either feeling or action. The Bible uses “joy” in both senses.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JoyasaFeeling\">Joy as a Feeling<\/p>\n<p>Joy is a feeling called forth by well-being, success, or good fortune. A person automatically experiences it because of certain favorable circumstances. It cannot be commanded.<\/p>\n<p>The shepherd experienced joy when he found his lost sheep (Mt 18:13). The multitude felt it when Jesus healed a Jewish woman whom Satan had bound for 18 years (Lk 13:17). The disciples returned to Jerusalem rejoicing after Jesus’ ascension (24:52). Joy was also the feeling of the church at Antioch when its members heard the Jerusalem Council’s decision that they did not have to be circumcised to keep God’s law (Acts 15:31). Paul mentioned his joy in hearing about the obedience of the Roman Christians (Rom 16:19). He wrote to the Corinthians that love does not rejoice in wrong but rejoices in the right (1 Cor 13:6; see also 1 Sm 2:1; 11:9; 18:6; 2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 1:40; Est 9:17-22).<\/p>\n<p>Psalms 137:1-6 shows that the emotion cannot be commanded. The Jews’ captors wanted them to sing in the land of their exile, something they were unable to do. Faraway Jerusalem was their chief joy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JoyasanAction\">Joy as an Action<\/p>\n<p>There is a joy that Scripture commands. That joy is action that can be engaged in regardless of how the person feels. Proverbs 5:18 tells the reader to rejoice in the wife of his youth, without reference to what she may be like. Christ instructed his disciples to rejoice when they were persecuted, reviled, and slandered (Mt 5:11-12). The apostle Paul commanded continuous rejoicing (Phil 4:4; 1 Thes 5:16). James said Christians are to reckon it all joy when they fall into various testings because such testings produce endurance (Jas 1:2). Joy in adverse circumstances is possible only as a fruit of the Holy Spirit, who is present in every Christian (Gal 5:22).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Fruit of the Spirit.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOY Positive human condition that can be either feeling or action. The Bible uses “joy” in both senses. Joy as a Feeling Joy is a feeling called forth by well-being, success, or good fortune. A person automatically experiences it because of certain favorable circumstances. It cannot be commanded. The shepherd experienced joy when he found his lost sheep (Mt 18:13). The multitude felt it when Jesus healed a Jewish woman whom Satan had bound for 18 years (Lk 13:17). The disciples returned to Je...","summary_en":"JOY Positive human condition that can be either feeling or action. The Bible uses “joy” in both senses. Joy as a Feeling Joy is a feeling called forth by well-being, success, or good fortune. A person automatically experiences it because of certain favorable circumstances. It cannot be commanded. The shepherd experienced joy when he found his lost sheep (Mt 18:13). The multitude felt it when Jesus healed a Jewish woman whom Satan had bound for 18 years (Lk 13:17). The disciples returned to Je...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"11":[{"id":8796,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Day","title_en":"Day","content_ro":"<h3>DAY<\/h3>\n<p>Most literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckoning presumably based on the Torah (cf. Gn 1:14, 19). That kind of literal solar (24-hour) day is known as a civil day. Among other ancient Near Eastern nations the civil day began at different times. Greek custom agreed with that of the Hebrews; the Babylonians started their day at sunrise; the Egyptian and Roman day stretched from one midnight to the next.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalDaysandWeeks\">Biblical Days and Weeks<\/p>\n<p>Commonly recognized units of the visible (12-hour) day were morning, noonday, and evening (Ps 55:17). Those divisions were sometimes defined by terms for dawn (Jb 3:9), the heat of the day (1 Sm 11:11), noon (Gn 43:16), the cool of the day (3:8), and evening (Ru 2:17). The Hebrew phrase “between the two evenings” (Ex 12:6, <span>rsv<\/span> mg) probably referred to dusk, the dark part of twilight (Ex 16:12). Division of days into consecutive hours did not take place until the time of Christ. The closest OT approximation to such a unit was the division of the day into quarters (Neh 9:3), perhaps a counterpart of the preexilic division of the night into watches.<\/p>\n<p>The ancient Hebrews did not name the days of the week other than the Sabbath. Rather, they referred to them numerically, a practice carried over into NT times (Lk 24:1). Because of the traditional Hebrew emphasis on the Sabbath, it was important for the Jews to know the exact time when the Sabbath began. The Pharisees therefore decided that the appearance of three stars following sunset would determine the Sabbath day’s beginning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DaysofCreation\">Days of Creation<\/p>\n<p>Many people believe that the days mentioned in the Genesis Creation narrative were 24-hour periods. The phrase “there was evening, there was morning” is used to support that idea. That expression, however, is actually a Sumerian literary figure that pairs opposites together to describe totality. Thus “evening-morning” means a complete phase of time within the total creative cycle; it emphasizes the completeness or comprehensiveness of the process, not the specific period of time in which that process was accomplished. The totality of Creation, phase by phase, may have been thus depicted without any necessary reference to a defined time period.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Sumerian civil day included only the visible (12-hour) period, a legal day of other nations was actually a “double day” (24 hours). If the early Genesis material reflects Sumerian culture, the use of “evening-morning” would preclude current concepts of a civil day and point instead to a phase or general time period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestament\">Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, “day” frequently has a figurative meaning—for example, the “day of the Lord” (Jl 1:15; Am 5:18), the “day of trouble” (Ps 20:1), and the “day of God’s wrath” (Jb 20:28). The plural form is sometimes used to describe a king’s reign (1 Kgs 10:21) or the extent of an individual’s life (Gn 5:4; 1 Kgs 3:14; Ps 90:12). God is described in the book of Daniel as the “Ancient of Days” (Dn 7:9, 13).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the Sabbath (Gn 2:3; Ex 20:8-11), which was reserved for rest and worship, “day” was applied to the Passover celebration each spring (Ex 12:14; Lv 23:5) and the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:29-31) each autumn. As with the Sabbath, no work was performed on those occasions; prescribed religious rituals were observed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestament\">New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the use of “day” followed Semitic usage to some extent, although the four military night watches were of Greek and Roman origin. The 12-hour day of NT times was a legacy of Babylonian astronomy (cf. Jn 11:9).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the literal usage of “day,” NT authors sometimes employed it figuratively, as in such expressions as the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2) and the “day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). Or they described specified periods of time, as in the “days of his Temple duties” (Lk 1:23, <span>tlb<\/span>). Special feasts mentioned include the Passover (Jn 12:1), the days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3), and the Day of Pentecost (2:1).<\/p>\n<p>As in the OT, the period of human life is described as days (Jn 9:4). Christians are called “children of the light and of the day” (1 Thes 5:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). Longer periods or eras are referred to as days (2 Cor 6:2; Eph 5:16; 6:13; Heb 5:7). The ominous note struck by the Hebrew prophets about a day of judgment is matched by NT stress on a day of final divine judgment when the Son of Man (Jesus) will reveal himself as Lord (Lk 17:30; Jn 6:39-44; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pt 2:9; 3:7, 12; 1 Jn 4:17; Rv 16:14). The “day of eternity” marks that point at which time will become eternity (2 Pt 3:18, <span>rsv<\/span>). The new Jerusalem, dwelling place of God’s people, is described as a place of perpetual day (Rv 21:25).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Day of the Lord; Eschatology.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAY<\/h3>\n<p>Most literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckoning presumably based on the Torah (cf. Gn 1:14, 19). That kind of literal solar (24-hour) day is known as a civil day. Among other ancient Near Eastern nations the civil day began at different times. Greek custom agreed with that of the Hebrews; the Babylonians started their day at sunrise; the Egyptian and Roman day stretched from one midnight to the next.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BiblicalDaysandWeeks\">Biblical Days and Weeks<\/p>\n<p>Commonly recognized units of the visible (12-hour) day were morning, noonday, and evening (Ps 55:17). Those divisions were sometimes defined by terms for dawn (Jb 3:9), the heat of the day (1 Sm 11:11), noon (Gn 43:16), the cool of the day (3:8), and evening (Ru 2:17). The Hebrew phrase “between the two evenings” (Ex 12:6, <span>rsv<\/span> mg) probably referred to dusk, the dark part of twilight (Ex 16:12). Division of days into consecutive hours did not take place until the time of Christ. The closest OT approximation to such a unit was the division of the day into quarters (Neh 9:3), perhaps a counterpart of the preexilic division of the night into watches.<\/p>\n<p>The ancient Hebrews did not name the days of the week other than the Sabbath. Rather, they referred to them numerically, a practice carried over into NT times (Lk 24:1). Because of the traditional Hebrew emphasis on the Sabbath, it was important for the Jews to know the exact time when the Sabbath began. The Pharisees therefore decided that the appearance of three stars following sunset would determine the Sabbath day’s beginning.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DaysofCreation\">Days of Creation<\/p>\n<p>Many people believe that the days mentioned in the Genesis Creation narrative were 24-hour periods. The phrase “there was evening, there was morning” is used to support that idea. That expression, however, is actually a Sumerian literary figure that pairs opposites together to describe totality. Thus “evening-morning” means a complete phase of time within the total creative cycle; it emphasizes the completeness or comprehensiveness of the process, not the specific period of time in which that process was accomplished. The totality of Creation, phase by phase, may have been thus depicted without any necessary reference to a defined time period.<\/p>\n<p>Since the Sumerian civil day included only the visible (12-hour) period, a legal day of other nations was actually a “double day” (24 hours). If the early Genesis material reflects Sumerian culture, the use of “evening-morning” would preclude current concepts of a civil day and point instead to a phase or general time period.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OldTestament\">Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, “day” frequently has a figurative meaning—for example, the “day of the Lord” (Jl 1:15; Am 5:18), the “day of trouble” (Ps 20:1), and the “day of God’s wrath” (Jb 20:28). The plural form is sometimes used to describe a king’s reign (1 Kgs 10:21) or the extent of an individual’s life (Gn 5:4; 1 Kgs 3:14; Ps 90:12). God is described in the book of Daniel as the “Ancient of Days” (Dn 7:9, 13).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the Sabbath (Gn 2:3; Ex 20:8-11), which was reserved for rest and worship, “day” was applied to the Passover celebration each spring (Ex 12:14; Lv 23:5) and the Day of Atonement (Lv 16:29-31) each autumn. As with the Sabbath, no work was performed on those occasions; prescribed religious rituals were observed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NewTestament\">New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the use of “day” followed Semitic usage to some extent, although the four military night watches were of Greek and Roman origin. The 12-hour day of NT times was a legacy of Babylonian astronomy (cf. Jn 11:9).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the literal usage of “day,” NT authors sometimes employed it figuratively, as in such expressions as the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2) and the “day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6). Or they described specified periods of time, as in the “days of his Temple duties” (Lk 1:23, <span>tlb<\/span>). Special feasts mentioned include the Passover (Jn 12:1), the days of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3), and the Day of Pentecost (2:1).<\/p>\n<p>As in the OT, the period of human life is described as days (Jn 9:4). Christians are called “children of the light and of the day” (1 Thes 5:5, <span>nlt<\/span>). Longer periods or eras are referred to as days (2 Cor 6:2; Eph 5:16; 6:13; Heb 5:7). The ominous note struck by the Hebrew prophets about a day of judgment is matched by NT stress on a day of final divine judgment when the Son of Man (Jesus) will reveal himself as Lord (Lk 17:30; Jn 6:39-44; 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pt 2:9; 3:7, 12; 1 Jn 4:17; Rv 16:14). The “day of eternity” marks that point at which time will become eternity (2 Pt 3:18, <span>rsv<\/span>). The new Jerusalem, dwelling place of God’s people, is described as a place of perpetual day (Rv 21:25).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Calendars, Ancient and Modern; Day of the Lord; Eschatology.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAY Most literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckonin...","summary_en":"DAY Most literally, a period of time delimited by the earth’s rotation around its axis, such as the period between two consecutive sunrises; also, the portion of that period in which the sun is visible, the other portion being called “night.” The word “day” occurs over 2,000 times in the OT, over 350 times in the NT. The Hebrew word for “day” is used in a variety of ways, not merely in the literal sense. The Hebrew day began in the evening and continued until the following evening, a reckonin...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34009,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Saul","title_en":"Saul","content_ro":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","summary_en":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38197,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Watch","title_en":"Watch","content_ro":"<h3>WATCH<\/h3>\n<p>Time unit for the division of the night in both the OT and NT. During the OT period, the night was divided into three military watches. The beginning or evening watch ran from sunset to roughly 10:00 <span>pm<\/span> (Lam 2:19); the middle or night watch was from 10:00 <span>pm<\/span> to 2:00 <span>am<\/span> (Jgs 7:19); and the morning watch was from approximately 2:00 <span>am<\/span> until sunrise (Ex 14:24; 1 Sm 11:11). During the Roman period, the number of watches was increased from three to four. These were either described by number (first, second, etc.) or as evening, midnight, cock-crowing, and morning (Mt 14:25; Mk 6:48). The respective watches ended at roughly 9:00 <span>pm<\/span>, midnight, 3:00 <span>am<\/span>, and 6:00 <span>am<\/span>. <em>See<\/em> Night.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WATCH<\/h3>\n<p>Time unit for the division of the night in both the OT and NT. During the OT period, the night was divided into three military watches. The beginning or evening watch ran from sunset to roughly 10:00 <span>pm<\/span> (Lam 2:19); the middle or night watch was from 10:00 <span>pm<\/span> to 2:00 <span>am<\/span> (Jgs 7:19); and the morning watch was from approximately 2:00 <span>am<\/span> until sunrise (Ex 14:24; 1 Sm 11:11). During the Roman period, the number of watches was increased from three to four. These were either described by number (first, second, etc.) or as evening, midnight, cock-crowing, and morning (Mt 14:25; Mk 6:48). The respective watches ended at roughly 9:00 <span>pm<\/span>, midnight, 3:00 <span>am<\/span>, and 6:00 <span>am<\/span>. <em>See<\/em> Night.<\/p>","summary_ro":"WATCH Time unit for the division of the night in both the OT and NT. During the OT period, the night was divided into three military watches. The beginning or evening watch ran from sunset to roughly 10:00 pm (Lam 2:19); the middle or night watch was from 10:00 pm to 2:00 am (Jgs 7:19); and the morning watch was from approximately 2:00 am until sunrise (Ex 14:24; 1 Sm 11:11). During the Roman period, the number of watches was increased from three to four. These were either described by number...","summary_en":"WATCH Time unit for the division of the night in both the OT and NT. During the OT period, the night was divided into three military watches. The beginning or evening watch ran from sunset to roughly 10:00 pm (Lam 2:19); the middle or night watch was from 10:00 pm to 2:00 am (Jgs 7:19); and the morning watch was from approximately 2:00 am until sunrise (Ex 14:24; 1 Sm 11:11). During the Roman period, the number of watches was increased from three to four. These were either described by number...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":34024,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Saul","title_en":"Saul","content_ro":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","summary_en":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":46180,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","summary_en":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73806,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","summary_en":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101432,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","summary_en":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129058,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:13<\/strong> <em>No one will be executed:<\/em> This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","summary_en":"11:13 No one will be executed: This was a time for rejoicing, not revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":13893,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gilgal","title_en":"Gilgal","content_ro":"<h3>GILGAL<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town near Jericho. Gilgal was assigned to Benjamin’s tribe when Canaan was divided among the tribes of Israel. For many years it was a center of religious, political, and military importance, especially during the periods of the conquest of Canaan and the early monarchy under Saul.<\/li>\n<p>Gilgal was the first place where Israel encamped in Palestine after the miraculous crossing of the Jordan River (Jos 4:19). No doubt the tabernacle was set up here, since Israel occupied Gilgal for some time and used it as the center of the commonwealth. Several significant religious events occurred at Gilgal: the circumcision of all Hebrew males born in the wilderness during the 40 years of wandering (5:2-9), the celebration of the Passover (v 10), the cessation of the manna (v 12), and a divine manifestation to Joshua by the “commander of the army of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Militarily, Gilgal was Israel’s first foothold in Canaan and the base of operations for the Conquest. From here Joshua led Israel to the conquest of Jericho (Jos 6) and Ai (8:3), formed a treaty with the Gibeonites (9:3-15), attacked the five Amorite kings (10:6-43), and launched his northern campaign (ch 11). At Gilgal, Judah, Manasseh, and Ephraim were assigned their portions of Palestine (chs 15–17).<\/p>\n<p>After the relocation of the tabernacle at Shiloh, Gilgal retained its importance to Israel. It was one of the towns visited regularly by Samuel in his annual circuit as judge (1 Sm 7:16) and was one of the primary places for offering sacrifices (10:8; 13:9-10; 15:21). At Gilgal, Saul, a Benjamite, was crowned king (11:14-15), and later rejected (13:4-15; 15:17-31). Here the men of Judah met David returning to Palestine after Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sm 19:15). That Gilgal was still a religious center of some importance as late as the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> is indicated in the denunciation by Hosea and Amos of the sanctuary and sacrificial cult located there (Hos 4:15; 9:15; 12:11; Am 4:4; 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>The exact location of Gilgal is disputed among archaeologists. Some locate it at Khirbet en-Nitleh about two miles (3.2 kilometers) east of modern Jericho. Others prefer Khirbet Mefjir, a mound about one mile (1.6 kilometers) from ancient Jericho (Tell es-Sultan). Joshua 4:19 places it on the eastern border of Jericho, and Josephus gives the distance from the Jordan fording place to Gilgal as 50 stadia (5.8 miles, or 9.3 kilometers), with Gilgal being about 10 stadia from Jericho (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 5.6.4). These distances fit best with Khirbet Mefjir.<\/p>\n<li>2. Place perhaps near Jericho (Dt 11:30); however, the language of the passage implies that it is located in the neighborhood of Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim.<\/li>\n<li>3. KJV rendering of “Goiim in Galilee” in Joshua 12:23. Although its location is uncertain, the context places it in northern Palestine in the area of Galilee. <em>See<\/em> Goiim #2.<\/li>\n<li>4. Place describing the northern border of Judah (Jos 15:7). It was near Adummim and was perhaps identifiable with Geliloth in Joshua 18:17.<\/li>\n<li>5. Place mentioned in connection with Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:1; 4:38). It was apparently a town farther from the Jordan River than #1 above. In the story of Elijah’s translation into heaven, he and Elisha were going from Gilgal to Bethel to Jericho. Since the account places Bethel between Gilgal and Jericho, it could not have been the first Gilgal. It may refer to the modern Jiljiliah, a town on top of a hill in central Palestine, about seven miles (11.3 kilometers) north of Bethel.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GILGAL<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town near Jericho. Gilgal was assigned to Benjamin’s tribe when Canaan was divided among the tribes of Israel. For many years it was a center of religious, political, and military importance, especially during the periods of the conquest of Canaan and the early monarchy under Saul.<\/li>\n<p>Gilgal was the first place where Israel encamped in Palestine after the miraculous crossing of the Jordan River (Jos 4:19). No doubt the tabernacle was set up here, since Israel occupied Gilgal for some time and used it as the center of the commonwealth. Several significant religious events occurred at Gilgal: the circumcision of all Hebrew males born in the wilderness during the 40 years of wandering (5:2-9), the celebration of the Passover (v 10), the cessation of the manna (v 12), and a divine manifestation to Joshua by the “commander of the army of the <span>Lord<\/span>” (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Militarily, Gilgal was Israel’s first foothold in Canaan and the base of operations for the Conquest. From here Joshua led Israel to the conquest of Jericho (Jos 6) and Ai (8:3), formed a treaty with the Gibeonites (9:3-15), attacked the five Amorite kings (10:6-43), and launched his northern campaign (ch 11). At Gilgal, Judah, Manasseh, and Ephraim were assigned their portions of Palestine (chs 15–17).<\/p>\n<p>After the relocation of the tabernacle at Shiloh, Gilgal retained its importance to Israel. It was one of the towns visited regularly by Samuel in his annual circuit as judge (1 Sm 7:16) and was one of the primary places for offering sacrifices (10:8; 13:9-10; 15:21). At Gilgal, Saul, a Benjamite, was crowned king (11:14-15), and later rejected (13:4-15; 15:17-31). Here the men of Judah met David returning to Palestine after Absalom’s rebellion (2 Sm 19:15). That Gilgal was still a religious center of some importance as late as the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> is indicated in the denunciation by Hosea and Amos of the sanctuary and sacrificial cult located there (Hos 4:15; 9:15; 12:11; Am 4:4; 5:5).<\/p>\n<p>The exact location of Gilgal is disputed among archaeologists. Some locate it at Khirbet en-Nitleh about two miles (3.2 kilometers) east of modern Jericho. Others prefer Khirbet Mefjir, a mound about one mile (1.6 kilometers) from ancient Jericho (Tell es-Sultan). Joshua 4:19 places it on the eastern border of Jericho, and Josephus gives the distance from the Jordan fording place to Gilgal as 50 stadia (5.8 miles, or 9.3 kilometers), with Gilgal being about 10 stadia from Jericho (<em>Antiquities<\/em> 5.6.4). These distances fit best with Khirbet Mefjir.<\/p>\n<li>2. Place perhaps near Jericho (Dt 11:30); however, the language of the passage implies that it is located in the neighborhood of Mt Ebal and Mt Gerizim.<\/li>\n<li>3. KJV rendering of “Goiim in Galilee” in Joshua 12:23. Although its location is uncertain, the context places it in northern Palestine in the area of Galilee. <em>See<\/em> Goiim #2.<\/li>\n<li>4. Place describing the northern border of Judah (Jos 15:7). It was near Adummim and was perhaps identifiable with Geliloth in Joshua 18:17.<\/li>\n<li>5. Place mentioned in connection with Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 2:1; 4:38). It was apparently a town farther from the Jordan River than #1 above. In the story of Elijah’s translation into heaven, he and Elisha were going from Gilgal to Bethel to Jericho. Since the account places Bethel between Gilgal and Jericho, it could not have been the first Gilgal. It may refer to the modern Jiljiliah, a town on top of a hill in central Palestine, about seven miles (11.3 kilometers) north of Bethel.<\/li>","summary_ro":"GILGAL 1. Town near Jericho. Gilgal was assigned to Benjamin’s tribe when Canaan was divided among the tribes of Israel. For many years it was a center of religious, political, and military importance, especially during the periods of the conquest of Canaan and the early monarchy under Saul. Gilgal was the first place where Israel encamped in Palestine after the miraculous crossing of the Jordan River (Jos 4:19). No doubt the tabernacle was set up here, since Israel occupied Gilgal for some t...","summary_en":"GILGAL 1. Town near Jericho. Gilgal was assigned to Benjamin’s tribe when Canaan was divided among the tribes of Israel. For many years it was a center of religious, political, and military importance, especially during the periods of the conquest of Canaan and the early monarchy under Saul. Gilgal was the first place where Israel encamped in Palestine after the miraculous crossing of the Jordan River (Jos 4:19). No doubt the tabernacle was set up here, since Israel occupied Gilgal for some t...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33791,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Books of First and Second Samuel","title_en":"Books of First and Second Samuel","content_ro":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\n<p>These books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century <span>BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century <span>AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>Even though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\n<p>It has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\n<p>There are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\n<p>God granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\n<p>In a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>Twenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\n<p>After the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>When Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\n<p>The victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the <span>Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\n<p>In the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\n<p>David then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>From Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\n<p>Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>David and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\n<p>While David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>While hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\n<p>David was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>For a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\n<p>David eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>The Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\n<p>Upon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\n<p>As had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>Subsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\n<p>Although David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\n<p>After Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\n<p>Recognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>It soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\n<p>David was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\n<p>Remembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\n<p>During a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\n<p>Absalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\n<p>In the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>At some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\n<p>In this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\n<p>In a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>In a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\n<p>This pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Name<\/p>\n<p>• Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Name\">Name<\/p>\n<p>First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book.<\/p>\n<p>These books, however, have not always been so designated, nor was the material originally divided into two books. As far as is known, the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT dating from the third century <span>BC<\/span>) translators were the first to separate the material of Samuel into two books (they made a similar division in the material of Kings). The Hebrew original of these books was written, as is characteristic of Hebrew, with symbols only for consonants and none for vowels. When translated into Greek, it was necessary to use symbols for both vowels and consonants, thus greatly lengthening the manuscript. Presumably the practical consideration of the length of the scroll was the cause for dividing the material of both Samuel and Kings into two books (scrolls) instead of retaining just one. The Septuagint translators, recognizing the continuity of content and emphasis in Samuel and Kings, designated what is now known as 1 and 2 Samuel as “The First and Second Books of Kingdoms” and then designated what now is known as 1 and 2 Kings as “The Third and Fourth Books of Kingdoms.” The Latin Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible prepared by Jerome in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>) slightly modified the Septuagint titles to “First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings.” These titles were utilized all through the Middle Ages and were modified into our present titles by the Protestant Reformers in the 16th century <span>AD<\/span> in agreement with Jewish rabbinic tradition. The Reformers, however, retained the division into two books, and this has been followed in modern English versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AuthorandDate\">Author and Date<\/p>\n<p>Even though Samuel is prominent in the early part of the book, and the book bears his name in our English versions, it is clear that he is not the author of the entirety of 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel’s death is recorded in 1 Samuel 25:1, prior to the time of the accession of David to the throne in place of Saul. Who wrote the material of 1 and 2 Samuel if it was not Samuel? On the basis of the statement in 1 Chronicles 29:29, it has been suggested by some that Samuel composed the early narratives of the book and that his work was later supplemented by the writings of the prophets Nathan and Gad. Others have suggested one of David’s contemporaries, such as Ahimaaz (2 Sm 15:27, 36; 17:17), Hushai (2 Sm 15:32; 16:16), or Zabud (1 Kgs 4:5). Presumably, these men would have had access to the writings of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, as well as to other sources (see 2 Sm 1:18) pertaining to the life and reigns of Saul and David. Who the real author was, however, cannot be determined from available evidence. Whoever it was, it is clear that he lived after the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (see references to “Israel in Judah” in 1 Sm 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2 Sm 5:5; 24:1-9; and “kings of Judah” in 1 Sm 27:6). Thus, 1 and 2 Samuel was published in its final form sometime after 930 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheologicalTeaching\">Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n<p>The theme binding together the narratives of 1 and 2 Samuel pertains to the relationship between kingship and the covenant. Kingship as requested by the people was a denial of the covenant; kingship as instituted by Samuel was compatible with the covenant; kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal idea; and kingship as practiced by David was an imperfect but true representation of the ideal of the covenantal king.<\/p>\n<p>It has often been pointed out that there is ambivalence in the description of the establishment of kingship in Israel (1 Sm 8–12), because in some places it seems to be suggested that kingship is improper for Israel, while in other places it seems to be suggested that kingship was God’s will for his people. Resolution to this tension is provided in 1 Samuel 12, when Samuel inaugurates Saul as Israel’s first king in the context of a covenant renewal ceremony by which Israel renews its allegiance to the Lord. Here it becomes clear that kingship in itself was not wrong for Israel; God desired Israel to have a king. But kingship of the type Israel desired (“like the other nations”) and for the reasons she wanted a king (to give a sense of national security and lead her to victory in battle) involved a denial of the Lord as her ultimate sovereign. Samuel defined the role of the king in Israel and presented Saul to the people in a ceremony in which they renewed their allegiance to the Lord. The monarchy in Israel was first established in a form that was compatible with the covenant. The king in Israel, as every other citizen of the nation, was to be subject to the law of the Lord and to the word of the prophet. From this perspective, the author depicts the reign of Saul as failing to correspond to the covenantal requirements, while the reign of David, although imperfect, reflected the covenantal ideal.<\/p>\n<p>There are at least two other important themes recorded in 1 and 2 Samuel. The first of these is that David conquers and acquires the land promised to Abraham. It is in the time of David that Israel’s borders are extended from Egypt to the Euphrates, as had been promised. A second event of major significance for the remainder of the Bible is David’s selection of Jerusalem to be the political and religious center of Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\n<p>God granted the request of Hannah for a son after a long period of barrenness. She named her son Samuel (a wordplay on the Hebrew expression “heard of God”) and dedicated him to the service of the Lord—with Eli the priest at the tabernacle in Shiloh. Hannah’s beautiful song of praise to God, who hears and answers prayer (2:1-10), exalts the sovereignty of God and prophetically anticipates not only the establishment of kingship in Israel but ultimately the highest fulfillment of the royal office in Christ himself (v 10). The evil practices of the sons of the priest Eli are described in verses 11-26. These men not only used their office for personal gain (vv 12-17) but also committed immoral acts with the women serving at the entrance to the tabernacle (v 22). Although Eli rebuked his sons (vv 22-25), his warnings were too little too late. It was in this lax environment that Samuel grew up (vv 18-21, 26).<\/p>\n<p>In 1 Samuel 2:27-36, an unnamed prophet pronounced judgment on Eli and his priestly line. The prediction of the imminent death of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s sons, was fulfilled when the Philistines took the ark and destroyed the tabernacle at Shiloh (4:11; Jer 7:14). In 1 Samuel 3:1–4:1, Samuel is called to be a prophet, and he too is given a message of judgment for the house of Eli (3:11-14). As the reliability of Samuel’s words are attested, it is recognized by the people that he was a true prophet of the Lord (3:19–4:1).<\/p>\n\n<h6>The Loss and Return of the Ark (1 Sm 4–6)<\/h6>\n<p>In a battle with the Philistines, the prophecy of 2:27-36 and 3:11-14 was partially fulfilled. The Israelites were defeated, the ark was taken, and Hophni and Phinehas were killed. Upon hearing the report of these calamities, Eli also died (4:17-18). The Philistines placed the ark of the Lord in the temple of their god Dagon in Ashdod (5:1-2). However, when the idol of Dagon broke in pieces and fell before the ark and a plague broke out in Ashdod, the ark was moved to Gath. When the plague broke out in Gath, it was moved to Ekron. When the plague erupted in Ekron, the Philistines were compelled to return the ark to Israel—as a test, it was placed on a cart pulled by two nursing cows. These cows, going against their motherly instincts, left their penned-up calves and headed for the Israelite border and the town of Beth-shemesh (6:1-21). By this the Lord demonstrated that the victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark could not be attributed to the Philistines’ god Dagon.<\/p>\n<h6>The Defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>Twenty years went by. Samuel assured the people of deliverance from Philistine oppression if they would confess their sin and turn from the worship of Baals and Ashtaroths. He called for a national assembly at Mizpah to renew allegiance to the Lord. While the Israelites were assembled, the Philistines attacked and the Lord gave the Israelites a miraculous victory, thereby demonstrating that obedience to covenant obligations would ensure national security (see Ex 23:22; Dt 20:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Kingship Established in Israel (1 Sm 8–12)<\/h5>\n<h6>The People Request a King (1 Sm 8:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Samuel was an old man, the elders of the nation approached him and requested that he give them a king. Samuel immediately perceived that their request was tantamount to a rejection of the Lord, who was their King, for the people desired a king “like the other nations”—as a symbol of national unity and military security. Nevertheless, the Lord told Samuel to give the people a king. At the same time, however, he told Samuel to warn the people concerning what having a king “like the nations” would mean. The warning, descriptive of the practices of contemporary Canaanite kings, fell on deaf ears; the people persisted in their desire for a king.<\/p>\n<h6>Samuel Privately Anoints Saul (1 Sm 9:1–10:16)<\/h6>\n<p>The narrative of Saul’s search for the lost donkeys of his father and his encounter with Samuel in the process of his search is given to explain how Samuel and Saul first met, and how the Lord indicated to Samuel who the person was that he was to anoint as Israel’s first king (9:16-17). After Samuel privately anointed Saul (10:1), he was given three signs to confirm that his new calling came from the Lord.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Publicly Chosen by Lot at Mizpah (1 Sm 10:17-27)<\/h6>\n<p>After the private designation and anointing of Saul to be king (9:1–10:16), Samuel convened a national assembly at Mizpah to make the Lord’s choice known to the people (10:20-24) and to define the king’s task (v 25). Again, at this assembly, Samuel emphasized that the people had rejected the Lord in requesting a king because they sought a king for the wrong reasons and failed to recognize the Lord’s past faithfulness in delivering them from their enemies. But again it was clear that the time for kingship in Israel had come and it was the Lord’s desire to give the people a king. Samuel’s explanation of the “regulations of the kingship” was an important step in resolving the tension between, on the one hand, Israel’s sin in desiring a king, and on the other, the Lord’s intent to give them a king. This document, which was preserved at the tabernacle, probably contained an enlarged version of the “law of the king” in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and spelled out regulations governing the role of the king in Israel for the benefit of both the king and the people. This document undoubtedly distinguished Israelite kingship from that of the kings of the surrounding nations.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Leads Israel to Victory over the Ammonites (1 Sm 11:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>When Nahash, king of the Ammonites, attacked Jabesh-gilead, a town east of the Jordan in the territory of Manasseh, Saul left his farmwork to lead a volunteer army in support of the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead. The victory over the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership placed another seal of divine approval on his selection to be king. Saul attributed the victory to the Lord rather than to his own military strategies.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Inaugurated as King (1 Sm 11:14–12:25)<\/h6>\n<p>The victory at Jabesh-gilead prompted Samuel to call for a national assembly at Gilgal to renew the kingdom and make Saul king (11:14-15). At the Gilgal assembly, Samuel led the people in confessing the sin of their initial request for a king and in renewing their allegiance to the Lord. In the context of this covenant renewal ceremony, Saul was formally inaugurated in his office as king. By inaugurating Saul in this manner, Samuel effectively provided for covenantal continuity in the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 13–15)<\/h5>\n<h6>Saul’s Disobedience (1 Sm 13:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul was threatened with an imminent attack from the Philistines, he gathered troops at Gilgal and awaited Samuel, as he had been instructed (10:8; 13:8). When it appeared that Samuel would not come within the prearranged time, Saul became impatient and offered a sacrifice himself (13:9). Just as the sacrifice was completed, Samuel appeared and rebuked Saul for not keeping the commandment of the Lord. In disobeying Samuel’s previous instructions, Saul had violated a fundamental requirement of his office. He was seriously mistaken in thinking he could strengthen Israel’s hand against the Philistines by sacrifice to the Lord when this was done in violation of the Lord’s specific command. Samuel told Saul that because of his disobedience his dynasty would not endure (v 14).<\/p>\n<h6>Jonathan’s Victory (1 Sm 13:23–14:52)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul’s son Jonathan and Jonathan’s armor bearer skillfully and courageously attacked a Philistine outpost, killing about 20 men (14:8-14). The Lord used this defeat, along with an earthquake, to bring panic to the entire Philistine force. In the meantime, Saul sought divine guidance on whether to join the fray with his own forces. When the Lord’s answer did not come immediately, Saul concluded that waiting for the Lord’s word might jeopardize his military advantage. Here again he demonstrated that he trusted more in his own insight than in waiting upon the Lord. Saul further damaged his own stature in the eyes of his troops by pronouncing a foolish curse on any who would eat food before the battle was won. This nearly cost Jonathan his life; he was spared only because of the intervention of the troops in his defense.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Rejected as King (1 Sm 15:1-35)<\/h6>\n<p>Saul was commanded by the Lord through Samuel to attack the Amalekites and totally destroy them, sparing neither human nor animal life. The Amalekites had previously attempted to destroy Israel shortly after their exodus from Egypt while journeying to Sinai (Ex 17:8-16). Saul disobeyed the Lord in sparing the best of the animals for sacrifice and in sparing Agag, the Amalekite king. The Lord sent Samuel again to rebuke Saul for his disobedience. Samuel charged Saul with rebellion against the Lord and told him that, because he had rejected the word of the Lord, the Lord had rejected him as king.<\/p>\n<h5>Saul and David (1 Sm 16:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel Anoints David (1 Sm 16:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>The Lord instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse in Bethlehem to anoint one of his sons to be king in place of Saul. By divine leading, Jesse’s youngest son, David, was shown to be the one whom the Lord had chosen. When Samuel anointed him as king, the Spirit of the Lord came upon him with power.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Service of Saul (1 Sm 16:14–17:58)<\/h6>\n<p>When Saul became plagued by an evil spirit, his attendants sought a harpist whose music would soothe him. David was the one chosen for this purpose. The position at the court, however, was not permanent, and David divided his time between the court and his home duties. In due time, the Philistines, led by the giant Goliath, encamped against the Israelites. Goliath challenged any Israelite who dared to meet him in individual combat. No Israelite ventured to accept his challenge until David, who was visiting the camp of the Israelite forces to bring food to his brothers, heard the challenge and responded in the strength and power of the Lord. The Lord gave David a great victory because he acknowledged that “the battle is the <span>Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\n<p>In the aftermath of David’s victory over Goliath, Saul’s son Jonathan pledged loyalty to David in a covenant of friendship. As David achieved further successes in leading Israel’s armies, and as his public acclaim grew, Saul began to fear that David was a threat to his throne (18:14-16, 28-30). Saul, hating David, made several attempts to kill him (18:17, 25; 19:1, 10). David was finally forced to flee and sought refuge with Samuel at Ramah. When Saul and three of his messengers went to Ramah to arrest David, they were so overcome by the Spirit of God that they were incapable of fulfilling their mission.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Jonathan (1 Sm 20:1-42)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s absence from the royal table at the new moon festival provoked Saul to again threaten David’s life. Jonathan met with David at a prearranged place to inform him of the danger and say good-bye. Jonathan and David again pledged themselves to mutual loyalty and kindness. In the encounter it is clear that both men knew that David, not Jonathan, would be the successor to Saul on the throne of Israel.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9)<\/h6>\n<p>David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob and, indicating he was on a secret mission for Saul, asked for bread and for the sword of Goliath, both of which were given to him. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, who was at Nob, observed the transaction.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Gath (1 Sm 21:10-15)<\/h6>\n<p>David then went into Philistine territory to King Achish at Gath. When his identity was discovered, he feigned insanity in order to escape.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Adullam (1 Sm 22:1-5)<\/h6>\n<p>From Gath David went to the cave of Adullam where he was joined by about 400 supporters. He took his parents to Moab for their own protection and then returned to the Forest of Hereth in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul Kills the Priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23)<\/h6>\n<p>Doeg the Edomite reported to Saul that Ahimelech the priest had given assistance to David. At Saul’s command Doeg massacred all the priests at Nob except Abiathar, who escaped with the ephod and joined David.<\/p>\n<h6>David at Keilah (1 Sm 23:1-13)<\/h6>\n<p>David and his men delivered the citizens of Keilah from Philistine raiders but were forced to leave the city when it was apparent that its unthankful inhabitants were prepared to hand David over to Saul.<\/p>\n<h6>David in the Desert of Ziph (1 Sm 23:14-29)<\/h6>\n<p>While David was in the desert of Ziph, he was encouraged by a visit from Jonathan, who again pledged to him his loyalty. Although the Ziphites promised to aid Saul in capturing David, a Philistine attack forced Saul to abandon his attempt to apprehend him.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life (1 Sm 24:1-22)<\/h6>\n<p>While hiding deep in a cave at En-gedi, David was unexpectedly provided the opportunity to take Saul’s life when Saul relieved himself at the entrance to the cave. Nevertheless, because Saul was “the anointed of the Lord,” David spared his life and shamed him into confessing his own wickedness. David did this by showing Saul a piece of his robe that he had cut off while Saul was in the entrance to the cave.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Sm 25:1-44)<\/h6>\n<p>David was badly mistreated by a sheepherder named Nabal. David was deterred, however, from foolishly taking the man’s life by the discerning words of Nabal’s wife, Abigail. Shortly after this incident, Nabal died and David took Abigail as his wife.<\/p>\n<h6>David Spares Saul’s Life a Second Time (1 Sm 26:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>For a second time, the Ziphites joined Saul in attempting to capture David. While Saul and his men were sleeping, David and Abishai crept into their camp and took Saul’s spear and water jug. On the next day, David was again able to demonstrate to Saul that he did not seek to steal the kingship from his hands.<\/p>\n<h6>David among the Philistines (1 Sm 27:1-12)<\/h6>\n<p>David eventually became weary of hiding from Saul in Israelite territory; in a time of discouragement, he went again to Philistia to seek refuge beyond Saul’s reach. Ingratiating himself with Achish, a Philistine ruler, he was given the town of Ziklag as a place for himself and his men to reside. From Ziklag, David raided various tribes inhabiting the area south of Philistia, but deceived Achish into thinking he was raiding the territory of Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>Saul and the Medium of Endor (1 Sm 28:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>The Philistines again gathered an army to fight Israel, and Saul, terrified and seemingly anticipating an imminent defeat, vainly sought for some word from the Lord concerning the outcome of the battle. When this was denied, he went in disguise to a medium at Endor and requested her to bring up to him the spirit of Samuel. Saul was told by this spirit that Israel would be defeated and that he and his sons would die in the upcoming battle.<\/p>\n<h6>The Philistines Mistrust David (1 Sm 29:1-11)<\/h6>\n<p>Although Achish desired David to join the Philistine army in its battle with Israel, the other Philistine commanders mistrusted him and forced Achish to send David and his men back to Ziklag. This turn of events rescued David from a serious dilemma created by his apparent friendship with Achish.<\/p>\n<h6>David Defeats the Amalekites (1 Sm 30:1-31)<\/h6>\n<p>Upon returning to Ziklag, David discovered that in his absence the city had been raided and burned by the Amalekites and that their wives, children, and cattle had been taken captive. After inquiring of the Lord through Abiathar the priest, David and his men went in pursuit of the Amalekites and recovered all they had taken and more. He divided the plunder among his troops and sent gifts from it to various towns in Judah.<\/p>\n<h6>The Death of Saul and His Sons (1 Sm 31:1—2 Sm 1:27)<\/h6>\n<p>As had been predicted, the battle with the Philistines ended in a disastrous defeat for Israel, in which Saul took his own life after being seriously wounded. Jonathan and two other sons of Saul were killed. David mourned for Saul and Jonathan and exalted their memory in his tribute to them recorded in 2 Samuel 1:19-27.<\/p>\n<h5>David (2 Sm 2–24)<\/h5>\n\n<h6>David Anointed King over Judah (2 Sm 2:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>Subsequent to Saul’s death, the Lord instructed David to go to Hebron, where the tribe of Judah anointed him as their king.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Ishbosheth, and Abner (2 Sm 2:8–4:12)<\/h6>\n<p>Although David became king over Judah, the remaining tribes—under the influence of Abner, commander of Saul’s army—recognized Ishbosheth as Saul’s successor (2:8-10). Ishbosheth was a son of Saul who had survived the battle with the Philistines. Conflict quickly broke out between the men of David, led by Joab, and the men of Ishbosheth, led by Abner. In this conflict Asahel, Joab’s brother, was slain by Abner. As David grew stronger and Ishbosheth weaker, Abner shifted his allegiance from Ishbosheth to David (3:1-21). Joab, however, avenged the blood of his brother Asahel by murdering Abner under the pretense of negotiating with him. Although David detested this act, mourned for Abner, and cursed Joab, the crime was not punished until early in the reign of Solomon (see 1 Kgs 2:5-6, 29-34). Shortly afterward, Ishbosheth was killed by two soldiers, who brought his head to David at Hebron, expecting to be rewarded (2 Sm 4:1-8). David, however, had them both put to death. The only male survivor of Saul’s line was the crippled son of Jonathan named Mephibosheth.<\/p>\n<h6>David King over All Israel (2 Sm 5)<\/h6>\n<p>After Ishbosheth’s death, David was made king over all the tribes at Hebron. One of David’s first acts as king was to capture the fortress of Zion from the Jebusites. David established Zion as his capital and built a palace there for his residence.<\/p>\n<h6>The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sm 6)<\/h6>\n<p>Recognizing the importance of the ark as a symbol of God’s presence with his people, David determined that it should be brought to Jerusalem from the obscurity of the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim, where it had remained throughout the entirety of Saul’s reign. Violation of prescriptions for handling the ark led to the death of Uzzah, one of Abinadab’s sons, and delayed the ark’s conveyance to Jerusalem for three months. In a second attempt David led a joyful procession into the city of Jerusalem, where the ark was placed in a tent that had been prepared for it.<\/p>\n<h6>David, Nathan, and the Temple (2 Sm 7)<\/h6>\n<p>It soon became David’s desire to build a temple to house the ark and provide a center for Israel’s worship of the Lord. The Lord told David through Nathan the prophet that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple) but that the Lord would build him a house (a dynasty) that would endure forever. Here the line of the promised seed is narrowed to the house of David within the tribe of Judah. This promise finds its fulfillment in the birth of Jesus, who was the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (see Mt 1:1). It would be the task of Solomon, David’s son, to construct the temple (2 Sm 7:13).<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Victories (2 Sm 8)<\/h6>\n<p>David was able to defeat numerous surrounding peoples, to extend Israel’s borders, and to establish a time of prosperity and rest for the nation.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Mephibosheth (2 Sm 9)<\/h6>\n<p>Remembering his covenant with Jonathan (see 1 Sm 18:1-3; 20:13-16, 42), David inquired concerning survivors of the house of Saul to whom he could show kindness. When Mephibosheth was sought out, David brought him to the court to enjoy the honor of eating at the king’s table.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Bathsheba (2 Sm 10–12)<\/h6>\n<p>During a war with the Ammonites, David committed adultery with the wife of one of his soldiers, Uriah the Hittite. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David attempted to get Uriah to sleep with her. When this failed, David arranged for Uriah’s certain death in battle. These sinful acts provoked God’s wrath (2 Sm 12:10-12) and David experienced the bitter fruits of his misconduct during the remainder of his life.<\/p>\n<h6>Amnon, Absalom, and Tamar (2 Sm 13)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s oldest son, Amnon, feigned sickness in order to arrange for his half sister, Tamar, to care for him. When Tamar refused Amnon’s sexual advances to her, he raped her. This incident enraged Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who determined to avenge his sister by killing Amnon. Absalom waited two years and then arranged for the murder of Amnon during the festivities of the time of sheepshearing. He then fled to Geshur, a small city-state in Syria, where his maternal grandfather was king.<\/p>\n<h6>David and Absalom (2 Sm 14–19)<\/h6>\n<p>Absalom remained in exile for three years until Joab arranged for his return by securing a renunciation of blood revenge from David (14:1-27). Upon Absalom’s return, however, David refused to see him for two years, until they were finally reconciled. In this whole episode David sidestepped the issues of repentance and justice and took no effective disciplinary action. In the meantime Absalom conspired to take the throne from David his father by attempting to discredit his administration of justice, and by seeking to win the favor of the people and members of David’s court. After four years, Absalom proclaimed himself king in Hebron and gathered sufficient military strength to force his father to flee from Jerusalem (ch 15). Failure to immediately pursue David led to the defeat of Absalom’s forces and to Absalom’s own death at the hand of Joab, David’s commander. David mourned for his son Absalom (19:1-8), but he was able to return to Jerusalem and to reestablish his government. David disciplined Joab for killing Absalom by replacing him as commander of his troops with Amasa.<\/p>\n<h6>Rebellion of Sheba (2 Sm 20)<\/h6>\n<p>In the unsettled conditions immediately after David’s return to Jerusalem, another abortive revolt was attempted by Sheba of the tribe of Benjamin. Joab, in defiance of David’s disciplinary action, killed Amasa, pursued Sheba, and crushed his revolt.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Gibeonites (2 Sm 21:1-14)<\/h6>\n<p>At some unspecified time during David’s reign, the land suffered a three-year famine. It was revealed to David by the Lord that the famine was due to Saul’s violation of an Israelite treaty with the Gibeonites (see Jos 9:15, 18-27). This offense was atoned for by giving seven descendants of Saul to the Gibeonites for execution.<\/p>\n<h6>David and the Philistines (2 Sm 21:15-22)<\/h6>\n<p>In this pericope four episodes of heroic accomplishments by David’s mighty men against the Philistines are recounted.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Song of Praise (2 Sm 22)<\/h6>\n<p>In a beautiful song of praise, David described his deliverance from his enemies and the help with which the Lord sustained him. The same song occurs with minor variations in Psalm 18.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Last Words (2 Sm 23:1-7)<\/h6>\n<p>In a brief statement, David acknowledges the work of God’s Spirit in enabling him to speak God’s word, and proclaims his confidence in the realization of the Lord’s promise to him and his dynasty.<\/p>\n<h6>David’s Mighty Men (2 Sm 23:8-39)<\/h6>\n<p>This pericope contains a list of 37 of David’s warriors and a description of some of their accomplishments.<\/p>\n<h6>The Census and David’s Punishment (2 Sm 24:1-25)<\/h6>\n<p>David’s decision to take a census of his fighting men reflected an improper trust in military-political organization and power. The Lord judged him by sending a plague on the land that killed many people. At the word of the Lord through Gad the prophet, David built an altar on the threshing floor of Araunah, which was later to become the site of the temple (see 2 Chr 3:1). The Lord responded to David’s sacrifices and prayers on behalf of the people; the plague was stopped.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","summary_en":"SAMUEL, Books of First and Second Preview • Name • Author and Date • Purpose and Theological Teaching • Content Name First and Second Samuel derive their names from the individual whom God used to establish kingship in Israel. Samuel is the most prominent figure in the early narratives of 1 Samuel. His key role in leading the nation of Israel through the transition from the period of the judges to that of the monarchy warrants the use of his name as the title for the book. These books, howeve...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46181,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","summary_en":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73807,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","summary_en":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101433,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","summary_en":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129059,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:14","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:14<\/strong> <em>renew the kingdom:<\/em> “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","summary_en":"11:14 renew the kingdom: “Renew” indicates that someone or something had deteriorated or had been damaged (cp. Ps 51:10). Whatever effect the scoundrels (1 Sam 10:27; 11:12) might have had in undermining the people’s confidence was now rectified by Saul’s victory over the Ammonites.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":28313,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":29067,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Paul, the Apostle","title_en":"Paul, the Apostle","content_ro":"<h3>PAUL, T<span>he Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Prominent leader of the first-century church; apostle to the Gentiles; author of 13 NT epistles.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Family and Cultural Background<\/p>\n<p>• Education<\/p>\n<p>• Saul the Persecutor<\/p>\n<p>• Conversion and Calling<\/p>\n<p>• Preparation for Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• Sent Out from Antioch<\/p>\n<p>• Traveling with Barnabas<\/p>\n<p>• The Council of Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• Further Travel<\/p>\n<p>• Labor in the Gospel<\/p>\n<p>• The Arrest in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• Voyage and Stay in Rome<\/p>\n<p>• Final Years and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FamilyandCulturalBackground\">Family and Cultural Background<\/p>\n<p>Paul was born around <span>AD<\/span> 10, a Jew in a family of Pharisees (Acts 23:6) of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:5) in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3), a center of commerce and learning that embraced the Hellenistic spirit and Roman politics. It was a city of which he could be proud (21:39). His parents named him Saul, perhaps after the first king of Israel, who was also a Benjaminite (1 Sm 11:15; Acts 13:21), but Acts 13:9 notes that he “was also called Paul.” He uses the Roman name Paul throughout his letters.<\/p>\n<p>From religious parents Paul received knowledge of the Law and Prophets and the Hebrew and Aramaic languages (Acts 21:40; 22:2-3; 23:6; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:5-6). Tarsus, however, was not a Jewish city. Rather, it had a Greek character, being a place where the Greek language was spoken and Greek literature was cultivated. This accounts for Paul’s familiarity with Greek (Acts 21:37), the language of the streets and shops of Tarsus.<\/p>\n<p>Jews were brought to Tarsus, the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia, in 171 <span>BC<\/span> to promote business in the region. At that time Paul’s ancestors were probably given Roman citizenship. Paul inherited from his father both Tarsisian and Roman citizenship, which would prove to be of great value to Paul in his later life as he traveled with the gospel throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 16:37; 22:25-29; 23:27). Paul may have had several brothers and sisters, but Acts 23:16 mentions only one sister, whose son performed a lifesaving act for his uncle.<\/p>\n<p>Paul was a tent maker (Acts 18:3). He may have learned this trade from his father, or he may have selected it as a means of self-support, as was the custom of those in rabbinical training. Tarsus was well known for the goat’s-hair cloth called cilicium. It was the weaving of this cloth and the fashioning of it into tents, sails, awnings, and cloaks that gave Paul his economic independence during his apostolic ministry (Acts 18:3; 20:34; 28:30; 2 Cor 11:9; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Thes 3:8).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Education\">Education<\/p>\n<p>Although born in Tarsus, Paul testified to the Jews in Jerusalem that he had been brought up in this city and studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). It is not clear when Paul was first brought to Jerusalem, but it is likely that sometime between the ages of 13 and 20 he began his formal rabbinical studies. His teacher, Gamaliel, was the grandson of Hillel, founder of a Pharisaic school whose teachings run through the Talmudic writings to this day. This is the same Gamaliel whose wisdom persuaded the Sanhedrin to spare the lives of Peter and the apostles (5:33-40). No doubt, it was while studying under Gamaliel in Hillel’s school that Paul began to advance in Judaism beyond many Jews of his own age and became extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers (Gal 1:14). Perhaps then also Paul began to experience the struggles with the law he would later describe in Romans 7.<\/p>\n<p>While Paul was studying the Jewish law in Jerusalem, Jesus was working as a carpenter in Nazareth. Then Jesus gathered the disciples who would one day be Paul’s coworkers in the gospel, fulfilled his ministry, and accomplished redemption on the cross of Calvary (<span>AD<\/span> 30). Christ’s resurrection gave birth to the church, which was baptized in the Holy Spirit at the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SaulthePersecutor\">Saul the Persecutor<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after these world-changing events, the members of certain synagogues in Jerusalem, including the Cilician synagogue, that of Paul’s native land (Acts 6:9), could not withstand the wisdom and spirit (v 10) of a member of the church in Jerusalem named Stephen (vv 5, 8). They accused him of blasphemy before the Sanhedrin (vv 11-15) and after his eloquent defense (7:1-53) dragged him out of the city, where he was stoned to death. He became the first Christian martyr. The record does not fully reveal the role Paul played in these proceedings, but we know that he was present and prominent because the witnesses against Stephen, who were required to throw the first stones in the execution, “laid their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul [Paul]” (v 58, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>At Stephen’s trial, Paul heard Stephen’s historical method of defense, and he later used it himself at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41). He witnessed the man with the face of an angel (6:15), full of the Holy Spirit, looking above and proclaiming “the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God” (7:56). Stephen’s death initiated the events that would culminate in Paul’s conversion and commission as the apostle to the Gentiles. But at that time Paul was a leader of the oppressors of the church. He breathed threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord (9:1); he persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it (Gal 1:13) by imprisoning Christians, both male and female (Acts 22:4), in many cities.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ConversionandCalling\">Conversion and Calling<\/p>\n<p>Paul had obtained letters from the high priest in Jerusalem to the synagogues in Damascus authorizing him to arrest the believers there and bring them to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9:1-2). Paul traveled to Damascus for this purpose. Then, on the outskirts of the city, came the event that was to transform this law-keeping persecutor of Jesus Christ and blasphemous destroyer of the infant church into the chief propagator of the gospel of grace and master builder of the church (1 Cor 3:10; 1 Tm 1:13). This was the occasion of Paul’s conversion (c. <span>AD<\/span> 31–33). It was of such revolutionary and lasting importance that three detailed accounts of it are given in the book of Acts (Acts 9:1-19; 22:1-21; 26:1-23), and many references are given to it in Paul’s own writings (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Gal 1:15-16; Eph 3:3; Phil 3:12).<\/p>\n<p>At that time a light from heaven, brighter than the midday sun, shone around Paul and his traveling companions, and they fell to the ground (Acts 26:13-14). Only Paul, however, heard the voice of Jesus instruct him in his commission as a minister and witness to the Gentiles (vv 14-18). Temporarily blinded, Paul was led into Damascus (9:8). There, the disciple Ananias and the Christian community forgave Paul, baptized him, and helped him through the bewildering event of his conversion (vv 10-22). After a short time with the church there, Paul was threatened with death by the Jews to whom he preached Jesus (vv 20-22), but he was protected by the believers and ingeniously delivered from his persecutors (vv 23-25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparationforMinistry\">Preparation for Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Then began a period of preparation, which lasted about 13 years. During this time, Paul first was in the desert of Arabia for three years. Here was his opportunity to pray and reflect on Stephen’s defense to the Sanhedrin, the momentous significance of his conversion, the vision he received of Jesus Christ, and the meaning of all this in the light of Jewish theology. Following this, Paul returned to Damascus and then visited Peter in Jerusalem for 15 days (Gal 1:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>At first, the disciples in Jerusalem were afraid of him because they did not believe he was a disciple of Jesus (Acts 9:26), but he was championed by Barnabas and thus accepted by the believers in Jerusalem (vv 27-28). While there, Paul may have heard the oral gospel, a summary of the words and deeds of Jesus, handed down to all converts. This would have included the institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25), specific words of the Lord (Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14), the appearances of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:3-8), and the spirit and character of Jesus (2 Cor 10:1; Phil 2:5-8). Paul also preached in Jerusalem, perhaps in the same synagogues in which he had heard Stephen. However, when his life was again threatened by the Jews, the believers sent him away to Tarsus (Acts 9:29-30; Gal 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>The end of Paul’s preparation came when Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for him and bring him to Antioch. By this time Paul had lived for 10 years in Cilicia. Since his conversion, before being sent to Tarsus, he had proclaimed Jesus (Acts 9:20), speaking boldly in the name of the Lord (v 27). There is no reason to think he did otherwise while living among the Gentiles in Cilicia. In fact, his work may have been so effective that he began to attract attention in Antioch. During these years, Paul probably underwent many of the sufferings mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:24-26. Several scholars think that the ecstatic experience mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:1-9, with its accompanying thorn in the flesh, also took place before he came to Antioch.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SentOutfromAntioch\">Sent Out from Antioch<\/p>\n<p>The church in Antioch had its origins in the persecution fomented by Paul after the death of Stephen. Until they arrived in Antioch, the scattered believers had only spoken the word to Jews (Acts 11:19). It was here that the Gentiles first heard the Good News (v 20), and many became believers (v 21). It is fitting that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21; Rom 11:13), who was as yet unknown by sight to the churches of Judea (Gal 1:22), should appear in Antioch to formally begin the ministry to which he was called (Acts 26:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Barnabas and Paul stayed with the church in Antioch for a year. Their work there was so blessed that a new name, Christian, was coined to distinguish the believers in Antioch from Gentiles and Jews (Acts 11:26). Hearing of a famine in Judea, the disciples in Antioch determined to send relief to the believers in Judea and did so by Barnabas and Paul (v 30). Such a gift displayed to the Jewish churches the potency of the gospel among the Gentiles. Their mission complete, Barnabas and Paul returned to Antioch with John Mark (12:25), Barnabas’s cousin (Col 4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Beginning from the Day of Pentecost, the work in the gospel had been casual and incidental. Contacts were made in the homes, the marketplace, the streets, synagogues, highways, etc. (Acts 3:1; 5:12, 42; 8:26-29; 10:22). But in Antioch the Holy Spirit initiated a determined effort to evangelize a section of the Roman Empire (13:1-3). By the Holy Spirit’s instructions, the church separated Barnabas and Paul for this work. With the prayers and encouragement of this church, and with John Mark as their assistant, Barnabas and Paul, sent out by the Holy Spirit, sailed for Cyprus (v 4).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TravelingwithBarnabas\">Traveling with Barnabas<\/p>\n<p>Arriving in Salamis, they preached in the synagogues as they traveled the length of the island to Paphos (Acts 13:5-6). There the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, wanted to hear the word of God (v 7). A magician named Elymas Bar-Jesus tried to prevent the proconsul from believing in Jesus but was stricken with temporary blindness by Paul’s command (vv 8-11). This was the first manifestation in Paul of the signs of an apostle (2 Cor 12:12). From then on, the name Paul, not Saul, is used in Luke’s record of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 13:9), and Paul replaced Barnabas as the leader of the party. So “Paul and his company” set sail from Paphos and arrived in Perga of Pamphylia (v 13). John Mark deserted them at Perga and returned to his home in Jerusalem (v 13). This caused discord (15:39), but Paul and Mark were later reconciled (Col 4:10; 2 Tm 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s travels with the gospel now continued through the Roman province of Asia, specifically in the southern portion of Galatia, the areas of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia. The coastal area where the party landed is a hot, malarial region. It is thought that Paul contracted malaria there and so traveled inland through the mountains to the 4,000-foot- (1,219.2-meter-) high tablelands. Such a journey would have been full of dangerous rivers and bandits (2 Cor 11:26), but Paul was well cared for by the Galatian highlanders when he arrived (Gal 4:13-15) and was rewarded with a warm reception to his message (Acts 13:48-49).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and Barnabas were asked to speak at the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:15), and Paul delivered a discourse full of the characteristics of the gospel he would later record in his letters to the churches (vv 16-41). He was invited to speak the next week (v 42); nearly the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God (v 44). This stirred up jealousy in the Jews who opposed Paul’s words (v 45), causing the apostles’ dramatic turn to the Gentiles (vv 46-47). Many Gentiles in Antioch believed and spread the word throughout the region, but Paul and Barnabas were forced out and went to Iconium in Lycaonia (vv 48-51).<\/p>\n<p>The success in Antioch was duplicated in Iconium as was the Jews’ opposition (Acts 14:1), and the apostles fled from the threat of a stoning to Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia (vv 5-6). In Lystra the signs of an apostle were again seen when Paul healed a man who had been crippled since birth (vv 8-10). The idolatrous citizens of the town, however, primed by the popular belief that Jupiter, accompanied by Mercury, had once visited their region, worshiped Paul and Barnabas as these deities (vv 11-13). Even the convincing words of Paul, whom they mistook for Mercury, hardly restrained the crowds from offering a sacrifice (vv 14-18).<\/p>\n<p>It was in Lystra that Paul was first given a taste of the same medicine he had once administered to Christians. The Jews stoned him, dragged him out of the city, and left him for dead (Acts 14:19). Timothy (16:1-3) may have been among the new disciples surrounding Paul as he lay outside the gate (14:20). Timothy was Paul’s son in the faith (1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tm 1:2), eyewitness to his suffering (2 Tm 3:10-11), faithful companion, and fellow worker (Acts 19:22; 20:4; Rom 16:21; 1 Thes 3:2). The next day Barnabas and Paul went on to Derbe (Acts 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>After making many disciples in Derbe, the apostles retraced their steps through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch of Pisidia, strengthening and encouraging the new believers and appointing elders in each church (Acts 14:21-23). Arriving again in Perga, they sailed back to Antioch of Syria, where they reported to the church the wonderful news that God had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles (vv 25-27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCouncilofJerusalem\">The Council of Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>The Jews, who had dogged the steps of Paul and Barnabas throughout Galatia, followed on their heels to bewitch the Gentiles there, convincing them to desert the grace of Christ and submit to the Jewish law (Gal 1:6; 3:1). Shortly after the apostles’ return to Antioch, Judaizers came from Judea to Antioch, teaching salvation by the law (Acts 15:1). This began the war against the gospel of grace, which Paul preached.<\/p>\n<p>The church in Antioch sent Paul, Barnabas, and others to Jerusalem to settle the controversy of the law versus grace with the apostles and elders there (<span>AD<\/span> 49, Acts 15:2). Along the way to Jerusalem they spread the news of the conversion of the Gentiles. This brought great joy to the believers (v 3). Such joy was not shared by some in Jerusalem, who in the first meeting of the council said that the Gentiles should be ordered to keep the law of Moses (v 5).<\/p>\n<p>After this meeting, Paul and Barnabas met privately with Peter, John, and James (Gal 2:1-10) and explained the gospel they had been preaching to the Gentiles. These three leaders of the church in Jerusalem saw the grace that had been given to Paul to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and extended to him the “right hand of fellowship.” This private meeting seems to have decided the question of compliance to the Jewish law because in the next general meeting Peter said, “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), and James reached the decision that “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (Acts 15:19, <span>rsv<\/span>). This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas, and the news was received with rejoicing by the church in Antioch (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Later, Peter visited Antioch and freely associated with the Gentile believers as he had timidly done in Cornelius’s house (Acts 10:28). This continued until “certain men came from James.” Their presence brought fear to Peter, clouding the light of the gospel of grace, and causing him to separate himself from the Gentiles. Peter’s action influenced others, including Barnabas, to do the same (Gal 2:12-13). Paul rose to the challenge of this serious crisis, confronted Peter publicly, and charged him with Judaizing and hypocrisy (v 14). Paul won the battle and rescued Peter and Barnabas with eloquent words on justification by faith (vv 15-21), but the Judaizers had resumed their war. From this time on, they did not rest; rather, they tormented and persecuted Paul all over the world. But the apostle did not submit to them for a moment. He was engaged in the fight of his life, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with the Gentile believers (v 5).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FurtherTravel\">Further Travel<\/p>\n<p>Paul wanted to visit the new believers and see how they were doing. So he proposed to Barnabas that they return to the cities where they had previously preached about Jesus (Acts 15:36). Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul would not take him since he had deserted them during their earlier journey (13:13). This sharp disagreement ended Barnabas’s association with Paul (15:37-39). Silas, a leader among the brothers in Jerusalem (v 22), accompanied Paul as he set out by land through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches (vv 40-41).<\/p>\n<p>Beginning from Derbe in Galatia, Paul and Silas revisited the churches Paul had established with Barnabas. While in Lystra, they were joined by Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). The apostles delivered to these young churches the letter drafted by the elders and apostles in Jerusalem concerning the observance of the law (15:23-29), thus strengthening and increasing them (16:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that Ephesus, a major city in the Roman province of Asia, was the party’s main objective for the advancement of the gospel, but they were “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” (Acts 16:6). Then they attempted to turn north and enter the region of Bithynia, “but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them” (v 7). In this way they were forced by God to continue straight westward to Troas on the Aegean Sea, where Luke joined them (“we” in v 10), and Paul had a vision in which he was called out of Asia into Macedonia (vv 8-9). Paul and his party immediately crossed by boat into Europe (v 11) where they carried the gospel to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth.<\/p>\n<p>Philippi was a Roman colony and military outpost where there were few Jews, so Paul went to a place by the river where the local Jews prayed. He spoke to some women there, notably Lydia, who believed and with her household was baptized (Acts 16:12-15), beginning the first church in Europe. Paul cast a spirit of divination out of a girl in Philippi, and as a result he and Silas were jailed (vv 16-24). The events of their night in jail made the jailer a believer in God (vv 25-34), and he and his family were added to the church in Philippi, which met in Lydia’s home (v 40). When Paul disclosed his Roman citizenship, he was released and was asked to leave the city (vv 35-39).<\/p>\n<p>At Thessalonica the Jews, aroused to jealousy by the success of Paul’s gospel message, raised a mob to search for the apostles. They complained to the city authorities that the people “who have turned the world upside down have come here also” and accused the apostles of “saying that there is another king [besides Caesar], Jesus” (Acts 17:5-7).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and Silas quickly left Thessalonica by night and arrived in Berea, a city thereafter distinguished by its citizens who eagerly and thoughtfully received the gospel (Acts 17:10-12). The Thessalonian Jews did not rest but trailed Paul to Berea to incite the crowds. The believers then sent Paul away to Athens, while Silas and Timothy stayed behind (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Athenians called Paul a babbler but let him air his views before the Areopagus. Paul’s speech there was alive with his broad knowledge. He alluded to Greco-Roman philosophy (Acts 17:27), poetry (v 28), sculpture (vv 25, 29), architecture (v 24), and religion while proclaiming the existence of an “unknown god” (v 23). But he was rudely cut short by scoffing and indifference when he mentioned the resurrection (v 32). Paul’s words delighted the minds of many but influenced the wills of few, so when he arrived in Corinth, he determined not to proclaim the mystery of God in lofty words of wisdom so that the believers’ faith would not rest on human wisdom but on the power of God (1 Cor 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>In Corinth Paul met Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3), Roman Jews with whom he lived and worked as a tent maker and who would become prominent among the churches (Acts 18:26; Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tm 4:19). He stayed in Corinth 18 months from <span>AD<\/span> 50 to 51, raising up a church (Acts 18:11) on the strength of a vision from God (vv 9-10) and in spite of the attacks of the Jews (vv 12-17). Paul wrote the first and second letters to the Thessalonians from Corinth to establish the believers in a holy, industrious life (1 Thes 3:13; 5:23; 2 Thes 3:7-12) in hope of the second coming of Jesus Christ (1 Thes 4:15-18; 2 Thes 2:1ff.).<\/p>\n<p>Accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, Paul sailed from Corinth for Syria. He left his fellow workers in Ephesus, sailed to Caesarea, briefly visited Jerusalem, and returned to Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). Paul stayed in Antioch for awhile but did not remain absent from the field of his labors for long. Alone, he departed from Antioch, went from place to place in Galatia and Phrygia strengthening all the disciples, and eventually arrived in Ephesus (18:23; 19:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LaborintheGospel\">Labor in the Gospel<\/p>\n<p>A Jew named Apollos had ministered in Ephesus prior to Paul’s arrival and had recently gone over to Corinth (Acts 18:24-28). There Apollos innocently became the cause of such discord (1 Cor 3:3-9) that he left and refused to return even at Paul’s request (16:12). Paul’s earlier visit to Ephesus (Acts 18:19-20), Apollos’s ministry, and the presence of Priscilla and Aquila had prepared Ephesus for the apostle’s preaching of the gospel of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Paul began his work in Ephesus by setting straight some ill-informed disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-7). He then spent three months preaching at the local synagogue until members of the congregation “spoke evil of the Way” (v 9). Paul then took the disciples and continued his arguments on the neutral ground of Tyrannus’s school (vv 8-9), where Jews and Greeks were free to come. He continued there for two years and “all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>The work in Ephesus was a great success (Acts 19:10, 20, 26). Paul enjoyed an open door for effective work (1 Cor 16:9), bolstered by extraordinary miracles (Acts 19:11-17), a public burning of valuable books of sorcery (vv 18-19), and the assistance of friendly officials from the province of Asia (v 31). There were also many adversaries (1 Cor 15:32; 16:9), especially among the artisans associated with the temple of Diana. Paul’s ministry had hurt their trade to the extent that they were incited to riot (Acts 19:23-41). Paul had intended to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8), but this tumult seems to have hastened his departure (Acts 20:1).<\/p>\n<p>During his stay in Ephesus, the household of Chloe sent word to Paul from Corinth that there were divisions in the church there (1 Cor 1:10-13). This report generated a flurry of letters and travels. Paul wrote a letter, which is now lost, to this church (5:9). The church in Corinth wrote a letter (7:1) and sent messengers to Paul (16:17), and Paul sent Timothy to them (4:17; 16:10). Paul then wrote 1 Corinthians (<span>AD<\/span> 53) and sent it by Titus, who was to meet him in Troas to report the results (2 Cor 2:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>After his hasty exit from Ephesus, Paul found an open door for the gospel in Troas, but he so longed to hear from Corinth that he pushed on into Macedonia (2 Cor 2:12-13). There he was finally comforted by Titus (7:5-7) and rejoiced at the news of the Corinthians’ repentance, earnestness, longing, and zeal (vv 8-16). From Macedonia Paul wrote 2 Corinthians (<span>AD<\/span> 54), toured northwest to proclaim the good news of Christ in Illyricum (Rom 15:19), and then turned south for Achaia and his third visit to Corinth (Acts 19:21; 20:1-3; 2 Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The time and place from which Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians is a topic of controversy. Some date it before the council at Jerusalem, about <span>AD<\/span> 45. Others say he wrote it from Corinth at this stage in his history. The latter opinion is the choice of this narrative.<\/p>\n<p>A three-month winter stay in Corinth (<span>AD<\/span> 55–56) produced the Letter to the Romans, which firmly set the benchmark of the gospel for all the ages. Paul had many personal friends in Rome (Rom 16) and had long intended to visit there (1:10-15). His plans were to deliver a collection from the Gentile churches to Jerusalem (Acts 20:35; Rom 15:25-26; 1 Cor 16:1) and then visit Rome (Acts 19:21) on his way to Spain (Rom 15:23-24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheArrestinJerusalem\">The Arrest in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s trip from Corinth to Jerusalem was marked by abundant warnings of the danger awaiting him in Jerusalem. The Judaizers’ acrimony toward Paul was common talk everywhere, but all alarms went unheeded (Acts 20:22-24, 38; 21:4, 10-15). However, the request for prayer in Romans 15:30-32 shows that Paul knew he might soon need a divine rescue from the unbelievers in Judea.<\/p>\n<p>The travelers, carrying the collection for Jerusalem, journeyed swiftly in order to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16). They proceeded by land from Achaia, through Macedonia, to Philippi in time for the Passover (spring <span>AD<\/span> 56, v 6). Crossing by sea to Troas, they visited the believers there (vv 7-12) and then sailed through the archipelago of the eastern Aegean Sea to Miletus (vv 13-16). From Miletus, Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus, to whom he delivered an impassioned speech containing his own dire warnings for them (vv 17-38).<\/p>\n<p>Parting from them, Paul and his companions set sail to Cos, to Rhodes, and then to Patara, where they changed ships for Phoenicia (Acts 21:1-2). A straight course to Tyre brought them within sight of Cyprus, with its memories of Barnabas and Sergius Paulus (v 3). “Through the Spirit” the disciples in Tyre “told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem” (v 4), but he pressed on to Caesarea, where he and his company stayed with Philip, who had formerly served with the martyred Stephen (21:8; cf. 6:5). In Caesarea, Paul would not be persuaded by an especially dramatic prophecy of his coming arrest (21:10-14).<\/p>\n<p>In Jerusalem the apostolic band stayed with Mnason, an early disciple, and were warmly welcomed by the brothers there (Acts 21:15-17). James and the elders of the church praised God when they heard of the things he had done through Paul among the Gentiles (vv 18-20), and when they received the collection from the churches (24:17). They told Paul of his bad reputation among the thousands of Jewish believers in Jerusalem and urged him to set right the Judaizers’ misrepresentation that he encouraged Jewish Christians to forsake the Mosaic customs (21:21-24). Acts 21:25 shows the Jerusalem elders understood that the Gentiles were under no obligation to Moses; their concern was for Paul to demonstrate that Jewish believers were free to continue their traditional observances.<\/p>\n<p>Paul had kept the Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6), as had Jesus and the early disciples in Jerusalem. He had also cut his hair in a vow at Cenchreae (18:18), so it was a small matter for him, a Jew, to ceremonially purify himself after becoming a Christian, especially if it would undermine the arguments of the Judaizers. To have refused the elders’ request would have lent credence to the Judaizers’ charge. The success of this plan is seen in that it was the Jews from Asia, visiting Jerusalem for the Pentecost feast of <span>AD<\/span> 57, who stirred up trouble for Paul (21:27-29)—not the Judaizers from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The whole city was aroused by Paul’s persistent persecutors. A violent crowd dragged him out of the temple just as Stephen had once been hauled to his martyrdom. They tried to kill him, but he was rescued by Roman soldiers as the mob cried, “Away with him!”—just as they had done to Jesus (Acts 21:30-36). At this juncture the educational and cultural diversity of Paul’s life came to his rescue. As he was carried for safety to the Roman barracks, he spoke in Greek to the tribune, who had mistaken him for an Egyptian assassin (vv 37-38). Given permission to speak to the crowd, he did so in the Aramaic language then common in Israel (vv 39-40). The hushed crowd eagerly heard Paul’s defense until he uttered the word “Gentiles.” At this, the crowd resumed its threatening and violence, and Paul was brought into the barracks (22:1-24). There the Romans prepared to flog him, until Paul revealed that he was not only a Jew from Tarsus but also a freeborn Roman citizen. The tribune was afraid, since he had bound a Roman citizen. Wanting to know the charges against Paul, he brought him to the Sanhedrin (vv 25-30).<\/p>\n<p>This meeting of the Jewish judiciary was shortly reduced to dissension and violence. Paul resorted to tactics justifiable in such a war and hopelessly divided the Sanhedrin on the subject of the resurrection (Acts 23:1-9). Paul again was rescued, this time from the contending factions of the Jewish leadership, and taken to the barracks, where the Lord encouraged him, promising that he would go to Rome (<span>AD<\/span> 56, vv 10-11).<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime 40 Jews entered into a murderous plot against Paul. They vowed not to eat or drink until they had killed the apostle (Acts 23:12-15). They almost succeeded, but with the help of the son of Paul’s sister (v 16), the conspiracy was exposed. For safety, Paul was taken from Jerusalem to Caesarea under guard of 470 soldiers and handed over to the custody of Felix the governor (vv 16-35). Inconclusive hearings before Felix (Acts 24), his successor, Festus (25:1-12), and King Agrippa (25:23–26:32) occupied Paul in his two years of imprisonment in Caesarea. Festus, wanting to please the Jews, suggested that Paul be returned to Jerusalem for trial, but Paul knew the murderous intent of his accusers and again utilized his Roman citizenship by making a dramatic appeal to Caesar (25:9-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"VoyageandStayinRome\">Voyage and Stay in Rome<\/p>\n<p>To plead his case at Caesar’s court, Paul and his companions, Aristarchus and Luke, were taken on a perilous voyage (<span>AD<\/span> 58, Acts 27:1–28:16). Their passage by ship from Caesarea to Rome is one of the most remarkable on record. Luke’s detailed account is a treasure of information on ancient ships, navigation, and seamanship. It is also a beautiful portrait of a heroic and dignified apostle Paul, the gospel’s ambassador in chains (Eph 6:20), who with the guidance and assurance of his God (Acts 27:23-26), led the 276 people on board to safety (v 37).<\/p>\n<p>Luke traces the voyage stage by stage through every crisis, with a change of ship at Myra, delay at Fair Havens on Crete, and the shipwreck on Malta. Finally, in the spring of <span>AD<\/span> 59, they arrived at Puteoli, Italy, and made their way to Rome, welcomed by the believers along the Appian Way (Acts 28:13-16).<\/p>\n<p>Luke provided a peaceful denouement to the Acts, notwithstanding the fact that the apostle was an imperial prisoner of Caesar Nero. Paul lived by himself in his own house, chained to a Roman guard (Acts 28:16, 30). There he received the local Jewish leaders—to calm any misgivings they may have had about him and, at the same time, to convince them about Jesus. His efforts had mixed success (vv 17-28). During Paul’s two or more years in Rome, the Judaizers seem to have withdrawn, only to be replaced by the peril of Eastern Gnosticism. This is seen in Paul’s letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and to Philemon, all written at this time. It is unlikely that Paul’s accusers appeared in Rome to bring formal charges before Caesar, so Paul was probably released in <span>AD<\/span> 61.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FinalYearsandMartyrdom\">Final Years and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p>It is here assumed that the Pastoral Letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are truly Paul’s work. Only through them can the probable course of events in Paul’s final years be traced. Romans 15:28 shows that Paul intended to deliver the collection to Jerusalem and then to “set out by way of you [Rome] to Spain.” The arrest and imprisonment in Jerusalem not only destroyed these plans but also extracted five precious years from the prime of a most productive life. Although Clement of Rome implied that Paul did fulfill his desire to go to Spain (<em>Clement to the Corinthians<\/em> 5), it is certain that the daily pressure of Paul’s anxious care for all the churches (2 Cor 11:28) did not abate.<\/p>\n<p>If Paul went to Spain, he may have been there when Rome was burned on July 19, <span>AD<\/span> 64. Tradition says that Paul traveled as far as Britain, but there is no evidence to confirm this. Returning east, he left Titus in Crete (Ti 1:5) and traveled through Miletus, south of Ephesus, where he left Trophimus sick (2 Tm 4:20). Traveling toward Macedonia, Paul visited Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tm 1:3). On the way, Paul left his cloak and books with Carpus in Troas (2 Tm 4:13). This indicates that he intended to return there for his possessions. From Macedonia Paul wrote his loving yet apprehensive first letter to Timothy (<span>AD<\/span> 62–64). He had decided to spend the winter in Nicopolis (Ti 3:12), northwest of Corinth on the Adriatic Sea, but was still in Macedonia when he wrote his letter to Titus. This letter is similar to 1 Timothy, yet with a somewhat harsher tone. In it is a final glimpse of the eloquent and zealous Apollos (Ti 3:13), who is still in association with Paul 10 or more years after his first appearance in Ephesus (Acts 18:24).<\/p>\n<p>From here Paul’s path is obscure. He may have wintered in Nicopolis, but he did not return to Troas for his winter cloak (2 Tm 4:13). At some point he was arrested by the Romans, because he spent a winter in Rome’s Mamertine Prison, suffering from the cold in that rock cell before he wrote his second letter to Timothy (<span>AD<\/span> 66–67). He may have been anticipating the coming winter when he requested that Timothy bring his cloak (vv 13, 21). It is possible that the charges against Paul were related to the burning of Rome; this is unknown. It was, however, now “illegal” to be a Christian since the “new religion” was no longer protected by Roman law as being part of Judaism (which was a legalized, recognized religion by Roman law).<\/p>\n<p>It was dangerous to be associated with Paul at this time. Many deserted him (2 Tm 4:16), including all his coworkers in Asia (1:15) and Demas, who loved the world (4:10). Only Luke, the physician and author of Luke and Acts, was with him when he wrote his second letter to Timothy (v 11). Faithful believers still in hiding in Rome were also in contact with the apostle (1:16; 4:19, 21). He told Timothy to come to him in Rome and bring Mark also (4:11). Apparently Timothy did come and was imprisoned (Heb 13:23). Paul’s request for the books and parchments (2 Tm 4:13) discloses that he was reading and studying the Scripture to the end.<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul had two hearings before Caesar Nero. At his first defense only the Lord stood by him (2 Tm 4:16). There he not only pleaded his own cause but also that of the gospel, still longing that all the Gentiles would hear its message. Perhaps no decision was made, and thus he was “rescued from the lion’s mouth” (v 17). Though he knew he would soon die, he was not afraid, but was assured that the Lord would give him a crown of righteousness on the last day (v 8). Finally, the apostle himself recorded his seminal encouragement to all believers: “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you” (v 22, <span>rsv<\/span>). After this, the Scripture is silent regarding Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of Paul’s second hearing but that it resulted in the sentence of capital punishment. History does not record Paul’s end. Nero died in the summer of <span>AD<\/span> 68, so Paul was executed before that date. As a Roman citizen, he must have been spared the lingering torture that had recently been suffered by his fellow martyrs. Tradition says that he was decapitated by the sword of an imperial headsman on the Ostian Road just outside of Rome, and buried nearby. This fulfilled Paul’s desire “to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil 1:23, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PAUL, T<span>he Apostle<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Prominent leader of the first-century church; apostle to the Gentiles; author of 13 NT epistles.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Family and Cultural Background<\/p>\n<p>• Education<\/p>\n<p>• Saul the Persecutor<\/p>\n<p>• Conversion and Calling<\/p>\n<p>• Preparation for Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• Sent Out from Antioch<\/p>\n<p>• Traveling with Barnabas<\/p>\n<p>• The Council of Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• Further Travel<\/p>\n<p>• Labor in the Gospel<\/p>\n<p>• The Arrest in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>• Voyage and Stay in Rome<\/p>\n<p>• Final Years and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FamilyandCulturalBackground\">Family and Cultural Background<\/p>\n<p>Paul was born around <span>AD<\/span> 10, a Jew in a family of Pharisees (Acts 23:6) of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil 3:5) in Tarsus of Cilicia (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3), a center of commerce and learning that embraced the Hellenistic spirit and Roman politics. It was a city of which he could be proud (21:39). His parents named him Saul, perhaps after the first king of Israel, who was also a Benjaminite (1 Sm 11:15; Acts 13:21), but Acts 13:9 notes that he “was also called Paul.” He uses the Roman name Paul throughout his letters.<\/p>\n<p>From religious parents Paul received knowledge of the Law and Prophets and the Hebrew and Aramaic languages (Acts 21:40; 22:2-3; 23:6; Gal 1:14; Phil 3:5-6). Tarsus, however, was not a Jewish city. Rather, it had a Greek character, being a place where the Greek language was spoken and Greek literature was cultivated. This accounts for Paul’s familiarity with Greek (Acts 21:37), the language of the streets and shops of Tarsus.<\/p>\n<p>Jews were brought to Tarsus, the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia, in 171 <span>BC<\/span> to promote business in the region. At that time Paul’s ancestors were probably given Roman citizenship. Paul inherited from his father both Tarsisian and Roman citizenship, which would prove to be of great value to Paul in his later life as he traveled with the gospel throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 16:37; 22:25-29; 23:27). Paul may have had several brothers and sisters, but Acts 23:16 mentions only one sister, whose son performed a lifesaving act for his uncle.<\/p>\n<p>Paul was a tent maker (Acts 18:3). He may have learned this trade from his father, or he may have selected it as a means of self-support, as was the custom of those in rabbinical training. Tarsus was well known for the goat’s-hair cloth called cilicium. It was the weaving of this cloth and the fashioning of it into tents, sails, awnings, and cloaks that gave Paul his economic independence during his apostolic ministry (Acts 18:3; 20:34; 28:30; 2 Cor 11:9; 1 Thes 2:9; 2 Thes 3:8).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Education\">Education<\/p>\n<p>Although born in Tarsus, Paul testified to the Jews in Jerusalem that he had been brought up in this city and studied under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). It is not clear when Paul was first brought to Jerusalem, but it is likely that sometime between the ages of 13 and 20 he began his formal rabbinical studies. His teacher, Gamaliel, was the grandson of Hillel, founder of a Pharisaic school whose teachings run through the Talmudic writings to this day. This is the same Gamaliel whose wisdom persuaded the Sanhedrin to spare the lives of Peter and the apostles (5:33-40). No doubt, it was while studying under Gamaliel in Hillel’s school that Paul began to advance in Judaism beyond many Jews of his own age and became extremely zealous for the traditions of his fathers (Gal 1:14). Perhaps then also Paul began to experience the struggles with the law he would later describe in Romans 7.<\/p>\n<p>While Paul was studying the Jewish law in Jerusalem, Jesus was working as a carpenter in Nazareth. Then Jesus gathered the disciples who would one day be Paul’s coworkers in the gospel, fulfilled his ministry, and accomplished redemption on the cross of Calvary (<span>AD<\/span> 30). Christ’s resurrection gave birth to the church, which was baptized in the Holy Spirit at the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SaulthePersecutor\">Saul the Persecutor<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after these world-changing events, the members of certain synagogues in Jerusalem, including the Cilician synagogue, that of Paul’s native land (Acts 6:9), could not withstand the wisdom and spirit (v 10) of a member of the church in Jerusalem named Stephen (vv 5, 8). They accused him of blasphemy before the Sanhedrin (vv 11-15) and after his eloquent defense (7:1-53) dragged him out of the city, where he was stoned to death. He became the first Christian martyr. The record does not fully reveal the role Paul played in these proceedings, but we know that he was present and prominent because the witnesses against Stephen, who were required to throw the first stones in the execution, “laid their clothes at the feet of a young man called Saul [Paul]” (v 58, <span>niv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>At Stephen’s trial, Paul heard Stephen’s historical method of defense, and he later used it himself at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41). He witnessed the man with the face of an angel (6:15), full of the Holy Spirit, looking above and proclaiming “the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God” (7:56). Stephen’s death initiated the events that would culminate in Paul’s conversion and commission as the apostle to the Gentiles. But at that time Paul was a leader of the oppressors of the church. He breathed threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord (9:1); he persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it (Gal 1:13) by imprisoning Christians, both male and female (Acts 22:4), in many cities.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ConversionandCalling\">Conversion and Calling<\/p>\n<p>Paul had obtained letters from the high priest in Jerusalem to the synagogues in Damascus authorizing him to arrest the believers there and bring them to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9:1-2). Paul traveled to Damascus for this purpose. Then, on the outskirts of the city, came the event that was to transform this law-keeping persecutor of Jesus Christ and blasphemous destroyer of the infant church into the chief propagator of the gospel of grace and master builder of the church (1 Cor 3:10; 1 Tm 1:13). This was the occasion of Paul’s conversion (c. <span>AD<\/span> 31–33). It was of such revolutionary and lasting importance that three detailed accounts of it are given in the book of Acts (Acts 9:1-19; 22:1-21; 26:1-23), and many references are given to it in Paul’s own writings (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8; Gal 1:15-16; Eph 3:3; Phil 3:12).<\/p>\n<p>At that time a light from heaven, brighter than the midday sun, shone around Paul and his traveling companions, and they fell to the ground (Acts 26:13-14). Only Paul, however, heard the voice of Jesus instruct him in his commission as a minister and witness to the Gentiles (vv 14-18). Temporarily blinded, Paul was led into Damascus (9:8). There, the disciple Ananias and the Christian community forgave Paul, baptized him, and helped him through the bewildering event of his conversion (vv 10-22). After a short time with the church there, Paul was threatened with death by the Jews to whom he preached Jesus (vv 20-22), but he was protected by the believers and ingeniously delivered from his persecutors (vv 23-25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PreparationforMinistry\">Preparation for Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Then began a period of preparation, which lasted about 13 years. During this time, Paul first was in the desert of Arabia for three years. Here was his opportunity to pray and reflect on Stephen’s defense to the Sanhedrin, the momentous significance of his conversion, the vision he received of Jesus Christ, and the meaning of all this in the light of Jewish theology. Following this, Paul returned to Damascus and then visited Peter in Jerusalem for 15 days (Gal 1:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>At first, the disciples in Jerusalem were afraid of him because they did not believe he was a disciple of Jesus (Acts 9:26), but he was championed by Barnabas and thus accepted by the believers in Jerusalem (vv 27-28). While there, Paul may have heard the oral gospel, a summary of the words and deeds of Jesus, handed down to all converts. This would have included the institution of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23-25), specific words of the Lord (Acts 20:35; 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14), the appearances of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor 15:3-8), and the spirit and character of Jesus (2 Cor 10:1; Phil 2:5-8). Paul also preached in Jerusalem, perhaps in the same synagogues in which he had heard Stephen. However, when his life was again threatened by the Jews, the believers sent him away to Tarsus (Acts 9:29-30; Gal 1:21).<\/p>\n<p>The end of Paul’s preparation came when Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for him and bring him to Antioch. By this time Paul had lived for 10 years in Cilicia. Since his conversion, before being sent to Tarsus, he had proclaimed Jesus (Acts 9:20), speaking boldly in the name of the Lord (v 27). There is no reason to think he did otherwise while living among the Gentiles in Cilicia. In fact, his work may have been so effective that he began to attract attention in Antioch. During these years, Paul probably underwent many of the sufferings mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:24-26. Several scholars think that the ecstatic experience mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:1-9, with its accompanying thorn in the flesh, also took place before he came to Antioch.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SentOutfromAntioch\">Sent Out from Antioch<\/p>\n<p>The church in Antioch had its origins in the persecution fomented by Paul after the death of Stephen. Until they arrived in Antioch, the scattered believers had only spoken the word to Jews (Acts 11:19). It was here that the Gentiles first heard the Good News (v 20), and many became believers (v 21). It is fitting that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21; Rom 11:13), who was as yet unknown by sight to the churches of Judea (Gal 1:22), should appear in Antioch to formally begin the ministry to which he was called (Acts 26:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>Barnabas and Paul stayed with the church in Antioch for a year. Their work there was so blessed that a new name, Christian, was coined to distinguish the believers in Antioch from Gentiles and Jews (Acts 11:26). Hearing of a famine in Judea, the disciples in Antioch determined to send relief to the believers in Judea and did so by Barnabas and Paul (v 30). Such a gift displayed to the Jewish churches the potency of the gospel among the Gentiles. Their mission complete, Barnabas and Paul returned to Antioch with John Mark (12:25), Barnabas’s cousin (Col 4:10).<\/p>\n<p>Beginning from the Day of Pentecost, the work in the gospel had been casual and incidental. Contacts were made in the homes, the marketplace, the streets, synagogues, highways, etc. (Acts 3:1; 5:12, 42; 8:26-29; 10:22). But in Antioch the Holy Spirit initiated a determined effort to evangelize a section of the Roman Empire (13:1-3). By the Holy Spirit’s instructions, the church separated Barnabas and Paul for this work. With the prayers and encouragement of this church, and with John Mark as their assistant, Barnabas and Paul, sent out by the Holy Spirit, sailed for Cyprus (v 4).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TravelingwithBarnabas\">Traveling with Barnabas<\/p>\n<p>Arriving in Salamis, they preached in the synagogues as they traveled the length of the island to Paphos (Acts 13:5-6). There the Roman proconsul, Sergius Paulus, wanted to hear the word of God (v 7). A magician named Elymas Bar-Jesus tried to prevent the proconsul from believing in Jesus but was stricken with temporary blindness by Paul’s command (vv 8-11). This was the first manifestation in Paul of the signs of an apostle (2 Cor 12:12). From then on, the name Paul, not Saul, is used in Luke’s record of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 13:9), and Paul replaced Barnabas as the leader of the party. So “Paul and his company” set sail from Paphos and arrived in Perga of Pamphylia (v 13). John Mark deserted them at Perga and returned to his home in Jerusalem (v 13). This caused discord (15:39), but Paul and Mark were later reconciled (Col 4:10; 2 Tm 4:11).<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s travels with the gospel now continued through the Roman province of Asia, specifically in the southern portion of Galatia, the areas of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia. The coastal area where the party landed is a hot, malarial region. It is thought that Paul contracted malaria there and so traveled inland through the mountains to the 4,000-foot- (1,219.2-meter-) high tablelands. Such a journey would have been full of dangerous rivers and bandits (2 Cor 11:26), but Paul was well cared for by the Galatian highlanders when he arrived (Gal 4:13-15) and was rewarded with a warm reception to his message (Acts 13:48-49).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and Barnabas were asked to speak at the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:15), and Paul delivered a discourse full of the characteristics of the gospel he would later record in his letters to the churches (vv 16-41). He was invited to speak the next week (v 42); nearly the whole city gathered together to hear the word of God (v 44). This stirred up jealousy in the Jews who opposed Paul’s words (v 45), causing the apostles’ dramatic turn to the Gentiles (vv 46-47). Many Gentiles in Antioch believed and spread the word throughout the region, but Paul and Barnabas were forced out and went to Iconium in Lycaonia (vv 48-51).<\/p>\n<p>The success in Antioch was duplicated in Iconium as was the Jews’ opposition (Acts 14:1), and the apostles fled from the threat of a stoning to Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia (vv 5-6). In Lystra the signs of an apostle were again seen when Paul healed a man who had been crippled since birth (vv 8-10). The idolatrous citizens of the town, however, primed by the popular belief that Jupiter, accompanied by Mercury, had once visited their region, worshiped Paul and Barnabas as these deities (vv 11-13). Even the convincing words of Paul, whom they mistook for Mercury, hardly restrained the crowds from offering a sacrifice (vv 14-18).<\/p>\n<p>It was in Lystra that Paul was first given a taste of the same medicine he had once administered to Christians. The Jews stoned him, dragged him out of the city, and left him for dead (Acts 14:19). Timothy (16:1-3) may have been among the new disciples surrounding Paul as he lay outside the gate (14:20). Timothy was Paul’s son in the faith (1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tm 1:2), eyewitness to his suffering (2 Tm 3:10-11), faithful companion, and fellow worker (Acts 19:22; 20:4; Rom 16:21; 1 Thes 3:2). The next day Barnabas and Paul went on to Derbe (Acts 14:20).<\/p>\n<p>After making many disciples in Derbe, the apostles retraced their steps through Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch of Pisidia, strengthening and encouraging the new believers and appointing elders in each church (Acts 14:21-23). Arriving again in Perga, they sailed back to Antioch of Syria, where they reported to the church the wonderful news that God had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles (vv 25-27).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCouncilofJerusalem\">The Council of Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>The Jews, who had dogged the steps of Paul and Barnabas throughout Galatia, followed on their heels to bewitch the Gentiles there, convincing them to desert the grace of Christ and submit to the Jewish law (Gal 1:6; 3:1). Shortly after the apostles’ return to Antioch, Judaizers came from Judea to Antioch, teaching salvation by the law (Acts 15:1). This began the war against the gospel of grace, which Paul preached.<\/p>\n<p>The church in Antioch sent Paul, Barnabas, and others to Jerusalem to settle the controversy of the law versus grace with the apostles and elders there (<span>AD<\/span> 49, Acts 15:2). Along the way to Jerusalem they spread the news of the conversion of the Gentiles. This brought great joy to the believers (v 3). Such joy was not shared by some in Jerusalem, who in the first meeting of the council said that the Gentiles should be ordered to keep the law of Moses (v 5).<\/p>\n<p>After this meeting, Paul and Barnabas met privately with Peter, John, and James (Gal 2:1-10) and explained the gospel they had been preaching to the Gentiles. These three leaders of the church in Jerusalem saw the grace that had been given to Paul to bring the gospel to the Gentiles and extended to him the “right hand of fellowship.” This private meeting seems to have decided the question of compliance to the Jewish law because in the next general meeting Peter said, “We believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11, <span>rsv<\/span>), and James reached the decision that “we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God” (Acts 15:19, <span>rsv<\/span>). This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas, and the news was received with rejoicing by the church in Antioch (vv 30-35).<\/p>\n<p>Later, Peter visited Antioch and freely associated with the Gentile believers as he had timidly done in Cornelius’s house (Acts 10:28). This continued until “certain men came from James.” Their presence brought fear to Peter, clouding the light of the gospel of grace, and causing him to separate himself from the Gentiles. Peter’s action influenced others, including Barnabas, to do the same (Gal 2:12-13). Paul rose to the challenge of this serious crisis, confronted Peter publicly, and charged him with Judaizing and hypocrisy (v 14). Paul won the battle and rescued Peter and Barnabas with eloquent words on justification by faith (vv 15-21), but the Judaizers had resumed their war. From this time on, they did not rest; rather, they tormented and persecuted Paul all over the world. But the apostle did not submit to them for a moment. He was engaged in the fight of his life, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with the Gentile believers (v 5).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FurtherTravel\">Further Travel<\/p>\n<p>Paul wanted to visit the new believers and see how they were doing. So he proposed to Barnabas that they return to the cities where they had previously preached about Jesus (Acts 15:36). Barnabas wanted to take John Mark with them, but Paul would not take him since he had deserted them during their earlier journey (13:13). This sharp disagreement ended Barnabas’s association with Paul (15:37-39). Silas, a leader among the brothers in Jerusalem (v 22), accompanied Paul as he set out by land through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches (vv 40-41).<\/p>\n<p>Beginning from Derbe in Galatia, Paul and Silas revisited the churches Paul had established with Barnabas. While in Lystra, they were joined by Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). The apostles delivered to these young churches the letter drafted by the elders and apostles in Jerusalem concerning the observance of the law (15:23-29), thus strengthening and increasing them (16:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>It is likely that Ephesus, a major city in the Roman province of Asia, was the party’s main objective for the advancement of the gospel, but they were “forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” (Acts 16:6). Then they attempted to turn north and enter the region of Bithynia, “but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them” (v 7). In this way they were forced by God to continue straight westward to Troas on the Aegean Sea, where Luke joined them (“we” in v 10), and Paul had a vision in which he was called out of Asia into Macedonia (vv 8-9). Paul and his party immediately crossed by boat into Europe (v 11) where they carried the gospel to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth.<\/p>\n<p>Philippi was a Roman colony and military outpost where there were few Jews, so Paul went to a place by the river where the local Jews prayed. He spoke to some women there, notably Lydia, who believed and with her household was baptized (Acts 16:12-15), beginning the first church in Europe. Paul cast a spirit of divination out of a girl in Philippi, and as a result he and Silas were jailed (vv 16-24). The events of their night in jail made the jailer a believer in God (vv 25-34), and he and his family were added to the church in Philippi, which met in Lydia’s home (v 40). When Paul disclosed his Roman citizenship, he was released and was asked to leave the city (vv 35-39).<\/p>\n<p>At Thessalonica the Jews, aroused to jealousy by the success of Paul’s gospel message, raised a mob to search for the apostles. They complained to the city authorities that the people “who have turned the world upside down have come here also” and accused the apostles of “saying that there is another king [besides Caesar], Jesus” (Acts 17:5-7).<\/p>\n<p>Paul and Silas quickly left Thessalonica by night and arrived in Berea, a city thereafter distinguished by its citizens who eagerly and thoughtfully received the gospel (Acts 17:10-12). The Thessalonian Jews did not rest but trailed Paul to Berea to incite the crowds. The believers then sent Paul away to Athens, while Silas and Timothy stayed behind (vv 13-15).<\/p>\n<p>The Athenians called Paul a babbler but let him air his views before the Areopagus. Paul’s speech there was alive with his broad knowledge. He alluded to Greco-Roman philosophy (Acts 17:27), poetry (v 28), sculpture (vv 25, 29), architecture (v 24), and religion while proclaiming the existence of an “unknown god” (v 23). But he was rudely cut short by scoffing and indifference when he mentioned the resurrection (v 32). Paul’s words delighted the minds of many but influenced the wills of few, so when he arrived in Corinth, he determined not to proclaim the mystery of God in lofty words of wisdom so that the believers’ faith would not rest on human wisdom but on the power of God (1 Cor 2:1-5).<\/p>\n<p>In Corinth Paul met Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3), Roman Jews with whom he lived and worked as a tent maker and who would become prominent among the churches (Acts 18:26; Rom 16:3; 1 Cor 16:19; 2 Tm 4:19). He stayed in Corinth 18 months from <span>AD<\/span> 50 to 51, raising up a church (Acts 18:11) on the strength of a vision from God (vv 9-10) and in spite of the attacks of the Jews (vv 12-17). Paul wrote the first and second letters to the Thessalonians from Corinth to establish the believers in a holy, industrious life (1 Thes 3:13; 5:23; 2 Thes 3:7-12) in hope of the second coming of Jesus Christ (1 Thes 4:15-18; 2 Thes 2:1ff.).<\/p>\n<p>Accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila, Paul sailed from Corinth for Syria. He left his fellow workers in Ephesus, sailed to Caesarea, briefly visited Jerusalem, and returned to Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). Paul stayed in Antioch for awhile but did not remain absent from the field of his labors for long. Alone, he departed from Antioch, went from place to place in Galatia and Phrygia strengthening all the disciples, and eventually arrived in Ephesus (18:23; 19:1).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LaborintheGospel\">Labor in the Gospel<\/p>\n<p>A Jew named Apollos had ministered in Ephesus prior to Paul’s arrival and had recently gone over to Corinth (Acts 18:24-28). There Apollos innocently became the cause of such discord (1 Cor 3:3-9) that he left and refused to return even at Paul’s request (16:12). Paul’s earlier visit to Ephesus (Acts 18:19-20), Apollos’s ministry, and the presence of Priscilla and Aquila had prepared Ephesus for the apostle’s preaching of the gospel of Christ.<\/p>\n<p>Paul began his work in Ephesus by setting straight some ill-informed disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-7). He then spent three months preaching at the local synagogue until members of the congregation “spoke evil of the Way” (v 9). Paul then took the disciples and continued his arguments on the neutral ground of Tyrannus’s school (vv 8-9), where Jews and Greeks were free to come. He continued there for two years and “all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord” (v 10).<\/p>\n<p>The work in Ephesus was a great success (Acts 19:10, 20, 26). Paul enjoyed an open door for effective work (1 Cor 16:9), bolstered by extraordinary miracles (Acts 19:11-17), a public burning of valuable books of sorcery (vv 18-19), and the assistance of friendly officials from the province of Asia (v 31). There were also many adversaries (1 Cor 15:32; 16:9), especially among the artisans associated with the temple of Diana. Paul’s ministry had hurt their trade to the extent that they were incited to riot (Acts 19:23-41). Paul had intended to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost (1 Cor 16:8), but this tumult seems to have hastened his departure (Acts 20:1).<\/p>\n<p>During his stay in Ephesus, the household of Chloe sent word to Paul from Corinth that there were divisions in the church there (1 Cor 1:10-13). This report generated a flurry of letters and travels. Paul wrote a letter, which is now lost, to this church (5:9). The church in Corinth wrote a letter (7:1) and sent messengers to Paul (16:17), and Paul sent Timothy to them (4:17; 16:10). Paul then wrote 1 Corinthians (<span>AD<\/span> 53) and sent it by Titus, who was to meet him in Troas to report the results (2 Cor 2:12-13).<\/p>\n<p>After his hasty exit from Ephesus, Paul found an open door for the gospel in Troas, but he so longed to hear from Corinth that he pushed on into Macedonia (2 Cor 2:12-13). There he was finally comforted by Titus (7:5-7) and rejoiced at the news of the Corinthians’ repentance, earnestness, longing, and zeal (vv 8-16). From Macedonia Paul wrote 2 Corinthians (<span>AD<\/span> 54), toured northwest to proclaim the good news of Christ in Illyricum (Rom 15:19), and then turned south for Achaia and his third visit to Corinth (Acts 19:21; 20:1-3; 2 Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n<p>The time and place from which Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians is a topic of controversy. Some date it before the council at Jerusalem, about <span>AD<\/span> 45. Others say he wrote it from Corinth at this stage in his history. The latter opinion is the choice of this narrative.<\/p>\n<p>A three-month winter stay in Corinth (<span>AD<\/span> 55–56) produced the Letter to the Romans, which firmly set the benchmark of the gospel for all the ages. Paul had many personal friends in Rome (Rom 16) and had long intended to visit there (1:10-15). His plans were to deliver a collection from the Gentile churches to Jerusalem (Acts 20:35; Rom 15:25-26; 1 Cor 16:1) and then visit Rome (Acts 19:21) on his way to Spain (Rom 15:23-24).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheArrestinJerusalem\">The Arrest in Jerusalem<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s trip from Corinth to Jerusalem was marked by abundant warnings of the danger awaiting him in Jerusalem. The Judaizers’ acrimony toward Paul was common talk everywhere, but all alarms went unheeded (Acts 20:22-24, 38; 21:4, 10-15). However, the request for prayer in Romans 15:30-32 shows that Paul knew he might soon need a divine rescue from the unbelievers in Judea.<\/p>\n<p>The travelers, carrying the collection for Jerusalem, journeyed swiftly in order to reach Jerusalem by Pentecost (Acts 20:16). They proceeded by land from Achaia, through Macedonia, to Philippi in time for the Passover (spring <span>AD<\/span> 56, v 6). Crossing by sea to Troas, they visited the believers there (vv 7-12) and then sailed through the archipelago of the eastern Aegean Sea to Miletus (vv 13-16). From Miletus, Paul sent for the elders of Ephesus, to whom he delivered an impassioned speech containing his own dire warnings for them (vv 17-38).<\/p>\n<p>Parting from them, Paul and his companions set sail to Cos, to Rhodes, and then to Patara, where they changed ships for Phoenicia (Acts 21:1-2). A straight course to Tyre brought them within sight of Cyprus, with its memories of Barnabas and Sergius Paulus (v 3). “Through the Spirit” the disciples in Tyre “told Paul not to go on to Jerusalem” (v 4), but he pressed on to Caesarea, where he and his company stayed with Philip, who had formerly served with the martyred Stephen (21:8; cf. 6:5). In Caesarea, Paul would not be persuaded by an especially dramatic prophecy of his coming arrest (21:10-14).<\/p>\n<p>In Jerusalem the apostolic band stayed with Mnason, an early disciple, and were warmly welcomed by the brothers there (Acts 21:15-17). James and the elders of the church praised God when they heard of the things he had done through Paul among the Gentiles (vv 18-20), and when they received the collection from the churches (24:17). They told Paul of his bad reputation among the thousands of Jewish believers in Jerusalem and urged him to set right the Judaizers’ misrepresentation that he encouraged Jewish Christians to forsake the Mosaic customs (21:21-24). Acts 21:25 shows the Jerusalem elders understood that the Gentiles were under no obligation to Moses; their concern was for Paul to demonstrate that Jewish believers were free to continue their traditional observances.<\/p>\n<p>Paul had kept the Jewish feasts (Acts 20:6), as had Jesus and the early disciples in Jerusalem. He had also cut his hair in a vow at Cenchreae (18:18), so it was a small matter for him, a Jew, to ceremonially purify himself after becoming a Christian, especially if it would undermine the arguments of the Judaizers. To have refused the elders’ request would have lent credence to the Judaizers’ charge. The success of this plan is seen in that it was the Jews from Asia, visiting Jerusalem for the Pentecost feast of <span>AD<\/span> 57, who stirred up trouble for Paul (21:27-29)—not the Judaizers from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>The whole city was aroused by Paul’s persistent persecutors. A violent crowd dragged him out of the temple just as Stephen had once been hauled to his martyrdom. They tried to kill him, but he was rescued by Roman soldiers as the mob cried, “Away with him!”—just as they had done to Jesus (Acts 21:30-36). At this juncture the educational and cultural diversity of Paul’s life came to his rescue. As he was carried for safety to the Roman barracks, he spoke in Greek to the tribune, who had mistaken him for an Egyptian assassin (vv 37-38). Given permission to speak to the crowd, he did so in the Aramaic language then common in Israel (vv 39-40). The hushed crowd eagerly heard Paul’s defense until he uttered the word “Gentiles.” At this, the crowd resumed its threatening and violence, and Paul was brought into the barracks (22:1-24). There the Romans prepared to flog him, until Paul revealed that he was not only a Jew from Tarsus but also a freeborn Roman citizen. The tribune was afraid, since he had bound a Roman citizen. Wanting to know the charges against Paul, he brought him to the Sanhedrin (vv 25-30).<\/p>\n<p>This meeting of the Jewish judiciary was shortly reduced to dissension and violence. Paul resorted to tactics justifiable in such a war and hopelessly divided the Sanhedrin on the subject of the resurrection (Acts 23:1-9). Paul again was rescued, this time from the contending factions of the Jewish leadership, and taken to the barracks, where the Lord encouraged him, promising that he would go to Rome (<span>AD<\/span> 56, vv 10-11).<\/p>\n<p>In the meantime 40 Jews entered into a murderous plot against Paul. They vowed not to eat or drink until they had killed the apostle (Acts 23:12-15). They almost succeeded, but with the help of the son of Paul’s sister (v 16), the conspiracy was exposed. For safety, Paul was taken from Jerusalem to Caesarea under guard of 470 soldiers and handed over to the custody of Felix the governor (vv 16-35). Inconclusive hearings before Felix (Acts 24), his successor, Festus (25:1-12), and King Agrippa (25:23–26:32) occupied Paul in his two years of imprisonment in Caesarea. Festus, wanting to please the Jews, suggested that Paul be returned to Jerusalem for trial, but Paul knew the murderous intent of his accusers and again utilized his Roman citizenship by making a dramatic appeal to Caesar (25:9-12).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"VoyageandStayinRome\">Voyage and Stay in Rome<\/p>\n<p>To plead his case at Caesar’s court, Paul and his companions, Aristarchus and Luke, were taken on a perilous voyage (<span>AD<\/span> 58, Acts 27:1–28:16). Their passage by ship from Caesarea to Rome is one of the most remarkable on record. Luke’s detailed account is a treasure of information on ancient ships, navigation, and seamanship. It is also a beautiful portrait of a heroic and dignified apostle Paul, the gospel’s ambassador in chains (Eph 6:20), who with the guidance and assurance of his God (Acts 27:23-26), led the 276 people on board to safety (v 37).<\/p>\n<p>Luke traces the voyage stage by stage through every crisis, with a change of ship at Myra, delay at Fair Havens on Crete, and the shipwreck on Malta. Finally, in the spring of <span>AD<\/span> 59, they arrived at Puteoli, Italy, and made their way to Rome, welcomed by the believers along the Appian Way (Acts 28:13-16).<\/p>\n<p>Luke provided a peaceful denouement to the Acts, notwithstanding the fact that the apostle was an imperial prisoner of Caesar Nero. Paul lived by himself in his own house, chained to a Roman guard (Acts 28:16, 30). There he received the local Jewish leaders—to calm any misgivings they may have had about him and, at the same time, to convince them about Jesus. His efforts had mixed success (vv 17-28). During Paul’s two or more years in Rome, the Judaizers seem to have withdrawn, only to be replaced by the peril of Eastern Gnosticism. This is seen in Paul’s letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and to Philemon, all written at this time. It is unlikely that Paul’s accusers appeared in Rome to bring formal charges before Caesar, so Paul was probably released in <span>AD<\/span> 61.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FinalYearsandMartyrdom\">Final Years and Martyrdom<\/p>\n<p>It is here assumed that the Pastoral Letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are truly Paul’s work. Only through them can the probable course of events in Paul’s final years be traced. Romans 15:28 shows that Paul intended to deliver the collection to Jerusalem and then to “set out by way of you [Rome] to Spain.” The arrest and imprisonment in Jerusalem not only destroyed these plans but also extracted five precious years from the prime of a most productive life. Although Clement of Rome implied that Paul did fulfill his desire to go to Spain (<em>Clement to the Corinthians<\/em> 5), it is certain that the daily pressure of Paul’s anxious care for all the churches (2 Cor 11:28) did not abate.<\/p>\n<p>If Paul went to Spain, he may have been there when Rome was burned on July 19, <span>AD<\/span> 64. Tradition says that Paul traveled as far as Britain, but there is no evidence to confirm this. Returning east, he left Titus in Crete (Ti 1:5) and traveled through Miletus, south of Ephesus, where he left Trophimus sick (2 Tm 4:20). Traveling toward Macedonia, Paul visited Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tm 1:3). On the way, Paul left his cloak and books with Carpus in Troas (2 Tm 4:13). This indicates that he intended to return there for his possessions. From Macedonia Paul wrote his loving yet apprehensive first letter to Timothy (<span>AD<\/span> 62–64). He had decided to spend the winter in Nicopolis (Ti 3:12), northwest of Corinth on the Adriatic Sea, but was still in Macedonia when he wrote his letter to Titus. This letter is similar to 1 Timothy, yet with a somewhat harsher tone. In it is a final glimpse of the eloquent and zealous Apollos (Ti 3:13), who is still in association with Paul 10 or more years after his first appearance in Ephesus (Acts 18:24).<\/p>\n<p>From here Paul’s path is obscure. He may have wintered in Nicopolis, but he did not return to Troas for his winter cloak (2 Tm 4:13). At some point he was arrested by the Romans, because he spent a winter in Rome’s Mamertine Prison, suffering from the cold in that rock cell before he wrote his second letter to Timothy (<span>AD<\/span> 66–67). He may have been anticipating the coming winter when he requested that Timothy bring his cloak (vv 13, 21). It is possible that the charges against Paul were related to the burning of Rome; this is unknown. It was, however, now “illegal” to be a Christian since the “new religion” was no longer protected by Roman law as being part of Judaism (which was a legalized, recognized religion by Roman law).<\/p>\n<p>It was dangerous to be associated with Paul at this time. Many deserted him (2 Tm 4:16), including all his coworkers in Asia (1:15) and Demas, who loved the world (4:10). Only Luke, the physician and author of Luke and Acts, was with him when he wrote his second letter to Timothy (v 11). Faithful believers still in hiding in Rome were also in contact with the apostle (1:16; 4:19, 21). He told Timothy to come to him in Rome and bring Mark also (4:11). Apparently Timothy did come and was imprisoned (Heb 13:23). Paul’s request for the books and parchments (2 Tm 4:13) discloses that he was reading and studying the Scripture to the end.<\/p>\n<p>The apostle Paul had two hearings before Caesar Nero. At his first defense only the Lord stood by him (2 Tm 4:16). There he not only pleaded his own cause but also that of the gospel, still longing that all the Gentiles would hear its message. Perhaps no decision was made, and thus he was “rescued from the lion’s mouth” (v 17). Though he knew he would soon die, he was not afraid, but was assured that the Lord would give him a crown of righteousness on the last day (v 8). Finally, the apostle himself recorded his seminal encouragement to all believers: “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you” (v 22, <span>rsv<\/span>). After this, the Scripture is silent regarding Paul.<\/p>\n<p>Nothing is known of Paul’s second hearing but that it resulted in the sentence of capital punishment. History does not record Paul’s end. Nero died in the summer of <span>AD<\/span> 68, so Paul was executed before that date. As a Roman citizen, he must have been spared the lingering torture that had recently been suffered by his fellow martyrs. Tradition says that he was decapitated by the sword of an imperial headsman on the Ostian Road just outside of Rome, and buried nearby. This fulfilled Paul’s desire “to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better” (Phil 1:23, <span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PAUL, The Apostle Prominent leader of the first-century church; apostle to the Gentiles; author of 13 NT epistles. Preview • Family and Cultural Background • Education • Saul the Persecutor • Conversion and Calling • Preparation for Ministry • Sent Out from Antioch • Traveling with Barnabas • The Council of Jerusalem • Further Travel • Labor in the Gospel • The Arrest in Jerusalem • Voyage and Stay in Rome • Final Years and Martyrdom Family and Cultural Background Paul was born around AD 10, ...","summary_en":"PAUL, The Apostle Prominent leader of the first-century church; apostle to the Gentiles; author of 13 NT epistles. Preview • Family and Cultural Background • Education • Saul the Persecutor • Conversion and Calling • Preparation for Ministry • Sent Out from Antioch • Traveling with Barnabas • The Council of Jerusalem • Further Travel • Labor in the Gospel • The Arrest in Jerusalem • Voyage and Stay in Rome • Final Years and Martyrdom Family and Cultural Background Paul was born around AD 10, ...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34010,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Saul","title_en":"Saul","content_ro":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>SAUL<\/h3>\n<p>Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked <em>of God.”<\/em> A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person called Saul (Shaul) is referred to in the OT, though little is known about him (<em>see<\/em> Shaul).<\/p>\n<p>1. Saul, king of Edom, is mentioned in an ancient list of kings who ruled Edom (in Transjordan) in pre-Israelite times (Gn 36:37-38; 1 Chr 1:48-49). He is described as coming from “Rehoboth on the river,” the “river” perhaps referring to a small river in the vicinity of Edom.<\/p>\n<li>2. Saul, the first king of Israel, is the best known and documented person with his name in the OT. He was a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest of the Israelite tribes, whose territory was located just north of the Canaanite city of Jerusalem. His father was Kish, son of Abiel. Saul was born in Gibeah, a small town just a few miles north of Jerusalem in the hill country, and apart from his travels and military expeditions, Gibeah was Saul’s hometown for his entire life. He was a married man with one wife, Ahinoam, and five children—three sons and two daughters (1 Sm 14:49-50). His best-known son, Jonathan, later served him in a senior military capacity; three of Saul’s sons died with him in battle (31:2). Of his two daughters, the best-known is Michal, the younger daughter, who married David.<\/li>\n<p>Saul the Soldier<\/p>\n<p>Saul lived during a critical period in the history of the Israelite tribes. Though the dates cannot be determined with any certainty, he lived during the latter half of the 11th century <span>BC<\/span> and probably ruled as king from about 1020 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>. Before he became king, the Israelite tribes were on the verge of military collapse. The Philistines, a powerful military people, had settled along the Mediterranean coast; they were well established on the coast and planned to move eastward and take control of Palestine as a whole. In order to do this, they first had to eliminate the Israelites, who were settled in the hill country on the west of the Jordan and also in Transjordan. The absence of any strong and permanent military authority among the Israelites meant that the Philistines were a grave military threat to the continued existence of Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The immediate crisis, which was to contribute to Saul’s rise to power, was a crushing defeat of the Israelite army by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 4:1ff). The victory gave the Philistines more or less complete control of Israelite territories lying to the west of the Jordan; they attempted to maintain that control by establishing military garrisons throughout the country they had captured. Israel, weakened by the Philistine defeat, became vulnerable to enemies on other borders. The nation of Ammon, situated to the east of the Israelites’ land in Transjordan, attacked and laid siege to the town of Jabesh (11:1). Saul, summoning an army of volunteers, delivered the inhabitants of Jabesh and defeated the Ammonites (v 11). It was after this event that Saul became king. He had already been anointed a prince or leader among the people by Samuel; after his military success at Jabesh, he assumed the office formally at the sanctuary in Gilgal (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>The defeat of the Ammonites provided a significant boost to Israelite morale, but it did not change the military crisis and threat posed by the Philistines. Indeed, the location of Saul’s appointment to kingship is significant. Gilgal, in the Jordan Valley near Jericho, was chosen partly because the earlier shrine of Shiloh was held by the Philistines. Gilgal was in one of the few areas remaining outside Philistine control. Hence, if Saul’s kingship was to mean anything, he had to address the Philistine problem immediately; if he did not, there would be no Israel to rule.<\/p>\n<p>Saul acted promptly. Although the precise historical details are difficult to reconstruct, a general view of Saul’s anti-Philistine campaign is provided in the biblical text. He attacked garrisons at Gibeah and, later, at Micmash, about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Gibeah (1 Sm 13:16ff.). He had great success at Micmash, thanks in part to the military aid of his son Jonathan. The Philistines were routed and retreated from that portion of the hill country (14:15-23). Saul established his military base in his hometown, Gibeah, and built a citadel there.<\/p>\n<p>In the years that followed this initial campaign against the Philistines, Saul was constantly engaged in other military activities. He continued to fight with enemies on his eastern borders, particularly Ammon and Moab, to the east of the Dead Sea (1 Sm 14:47). He engaged in a major campaign on the southern border with the old enemies of the Israelites, the Amalekites (15:7); in this, too, he was successful. And throughout all this, he had to keep constant watch on Philistine activity on his western border.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was faced with an extraordinarily difficult task as military commander. His home ground had the advantage of being reasonably easy to protect, for most of it was mountainous countryside. But he was surrounded on all four sides by enemies who wanted his land, he had inadequate weapons (Philistines controlled the supply of iron), he had no large standing army, he had inadequate communication systems, and he did not have the wholehearted support of all the Israelites. For several years he was relatively successful against almost impossible odds, but eventually his military genius failed.<\/p>\n<p>The Philistines assembled a large army in the vicinity of Aphek (1 Sm 29:1), but instead of attacking Saul’s mountain territory directly, the army moved northward and then began to penetrate Israelite territory at a weak point in the vicinity of Jezreel (v 11). Saul attempted to gather an adequate military force to meet the Philistine threat, but he was unable to do so. With inadequate preparation and insufficient forces, he prepared for battle at Mt Gilboa (31:1); he should never have entered that battle, for it could not have been won. His sons were killed on the battlefield, and Saul, rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, committed suicide (vv 2-6).<\/p>\n<p>From a military perspective, Saul had become king at a time of crisis; he had averted disaster and gained some respite for his country. But the battle in which he died was a disaster for Israel; the country he left behind after his death was in worse straits than it had been on his assumption of power.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the King<\/p>\n<p>If Saul had a difficult task as Israel’s military commander, he had an even more difficult task as Israel’s king. Before Saul’s time, there had been no king in Israel. The absence of any form of monarchy in Israel was largely a religious matter. God was the one and only true King of Israel; he was the one who reigned (Ex 15:18). Consequently, although there had been single, powerful rulers in Israel’s earlier history (Moses, Joshua, and certain judges), nobody had assumed the title or office of king, for it was thought that that would undermine the central position of God as King. However, provision had been made for the rise of kingship in the law (Dt 19:14-20); for more on kingship in Israel, <em>see<\/em> King, Kingship.<\/p>\n<p>It was sheer necessity that brought a monarchy to Israel, a necessity created by the constant military threat of the Philistines. A brief external threat could have been met by a temporary ruler, a judge. But a permanent and serious threat to Israel’s existence could not be thwarted by such temporary measures. If Israel was to survive as a nation (and it very nearly did not), it needed a central military government with recognized authority over the various tribes that constituted the nation of Israel. Thus the kingdom was established and Saul became the first king, facing incredible difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>Since there had never been a kingdom before in Israel, there were no precedents. What were his responsibilities? Primarily, they were military, for that was why the monarchy had been established. In this area, Saul was successful in the early years of his reign. But apart from his military responsibilities, King Saul faced an enormously difficult task. Given the nature of Hebrew theology, it was inevitable that many Israelites were opposed to the idea of kingship from the beginning. Indeed, Samuel, who was instrumental in the initial anointing of Saul and then in the formal coronation, appears to have been ambiguous in his attitudes toward the kingship (1 Sm 8:6), and later toward Saul himself (15:23). Furthermore, nobody had specified precisely what it was that the leader could do. He was a soldier—that much was clear. But did he also have religious responsibilities? Though the judgment of history upon Saul is often harsh, it is wise to recall the difficulty of the task he undertook. The military problems alone would have been more than sufficient for most great men; Saul also had to fashion the new role as king. In practical matters, Saul’s leadership was modest and praiseworthy. He sought none of the pomp and splendor of many Eastern kings. He had a small court, located in his military stronghold of Gibeah; there is little evidence that it was characterized by great wealth. For practical purposes, he had no standing army; he had only a few men close to him, in particular his son Jonathan and his general Abner. He also sought out young men of promise, like David. Saul’s court was rustic and feudal in comparison to the later splendor of David and Solomon. But Saul, as national leader, ran into difficulties with Samuel, who had appointed him and had influenced Israel prior to his kingship. While the responsibility for the trouble may lie primarily with Saul, Samuel himself does not appear to have been particularly supportive and helpful. On one occasion, Saul was roundly criticized and condemned by Samuel for assuming the priestly role of offering sacrifices in the absence of Samuel at Gilgal (1 Sm 13:8-15). The judgment was no doubt deserved, though one can perceive Saul’s dilemma. Did the king have a priestly role or not? This issue had not been made clear. Furthermore, Saul was at the time in a state of crisis; he had waited seven days for Samuel to turn up, and as each day passed, his army was reduced by deserters. So Saul acted. Perhaps he may not be excused, but his actions may easily be understood, and the incident itself is indicative of the difficulty of being a nation’s first king. Again, after the Amalekite war, Saul was subject to divine condemnation through Samuel.<\/p>\n<p>Saul was Israel’s first king but not its greatest. Yet no criticism of Saul’s leadership should be so harsh as to ignore his strengths. He faced extraordinary difficulties and for a while was successful. Few other men could have done what he did. Ultimately, he died in failure, yet his achievements might have been better remembered if he had been succeeded by any other leader than David. David’s gifts and competence were so magnificent and unusual that Saul’s modest achievements paled and only his failures are remembered.<\/p>\n<p>Saul the Man<\/p>\n<p>The writers of the OT have presented the story of Saul in a fascinating manner. While some OT characters remain shadowy figures, Saul stands out, with all his strengths and weaknesses, as a fully human figure. He was, in many ways, a great man, but there were also flaws in his personality that emerged more and more in the later years of his life. Born of a wealthy father, Saul is described as being tall and handsome (1 Sm 9:1-2). He was a man of immense courage, and part of his military success was rooted in his fearlessness. In his early years as king, Saul is portrayed as a man whose basic instincts were generous; he was kind and loyal to his friends and did not easily carry a grudge or hatred toward those who opposed him (11:12-13). But the real strength of Saul, in his early days, was in his relationship to God. For all his natural gifts and abilities, Saul became king as a result of divine appointment (10:1) and because the “Spirit of the Lord” came upon him (v 6).<\/p>\n<p>In his later life, a change came over Saul that transformed him into a tragic, pitiable person. The many incidents in Saul’s relationship to the young David provide insight into the transformation. Once a friend, then perceived as an enemy, David became the object of Saul’s unfounded suspicions and irrational jealousy. Saul’s periods of sanity became punctuated by periods of depression and paranoia. The paranoia affected his rational thought. Instead of warring against the invading Philistines, his energy was diverted toward the pursuit of David. The biblical writers describe this change as “the departure of the Spirit of God from Saul” and “an evil spirit from the <span>Lord<\/span> tormenting him” (1 Sm 16:14). Many modern writers have interpreted this as the onset of a form of mental illness, perhaps manic-depression, the alternation between active and lucid periods, followed by intense depression and paranoia. But there is a certain danger in psychoanalyzing the figures of ancient history, principally because the literary sources are rarely adequate to the task. The biblical writers indicated a theological basis for the change in Saul: the Spirit of God had departed from him. From a simple human perspective, the man was not equal to the enormity of the task before him. Overcome by its complexity, and lagging in the faith of the one who appointed him to such awesome responsibility, Saul ended his days in tragedy.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David.<\/p>\n<li>3. Saul, mentioned in the NT, whose name was changed to Paul (Acts 13:9). <em>See<\/em> Paul, The Apostle.<\/li>","summary_ro":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","summary_en":"SAUL Name meaning “asked,” with the implication being “asked of God.” A name with a usage extending far back into prebiblical times, it is attested in third-millennium texts from Tell Mardikh in Syria (ancient Ebla) and appears also to have been used in the second millennium in the city of Ugarit on the coast of Syria. In addition to the conventional spelling, it is sometimes spelled Shaul in older English versions. Apart from King Saul, the most famous bearer of the name, one other person ca...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46182,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","summary_en":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73808,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","summary_en":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101434,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","summary_en":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129060,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 11:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 11:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>11:15<\/strong> The <em>solemn ceremony before the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • <em>Peace offerings<\/em> were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).<\/p>","summary_ro":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","summary_en":"11:15 The solemn ceremony before the Lord acknowledged Saul’s sovereignty as king while affirming that the Lord was Israel’s true King. • Peace offerings were common on historic occasions that inaugurated important institutions (see Exod 24:5; Lev 9:4, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 8:63-64).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}