📖 Biblia online

Citește Biblia

Biblia audio Planuri audio structurate — ascultă Biblia zilnică

1 Samuel 22

¹ David a plecat de acolo, şi a scăpat în peştera Adulam. Fraţii lui şi toată casa tatălui său au aflat, şi s-au pogorât la el.

² Toţi ceice se aflau în nevoie, cari aveau datorii, sau cari era nemulţămiţi, s-au strâns la el, şi el a ajuns căpetenia lor. Astfel, s-au unit cu el aproape patru sute de oameni.

³ De acolo David s-a dus la Miţpe în ţara Moabului. El a zis împăratului Moabului: ,,Dă voie, te rog, tatălui meu şi mamei mele să vină la voi, până voi şti ce va face Dumnezeu cu mine.``

⁴ Şi i-a adus înaintea împăratului Moabului, şi au locuit cu el în tot timpul cât a stat David în cetăţuie.

⁵ Proorocul Gad a zis lui David: ,,Nu şedea în cetăţuie, ci du-te, şi intră în ţara lui Iuda.`` Şi David a plecat şi a ajuns la pădurea Heret.

⁶ Saul a aflat că David şi oamenii lui au fost descoperiţi. Saul şedea subt tamarisc, la Ghibea, pe înălţime; avea suliţa în mână, şi toţi slujitorii lui stăteau lângă el.

⁷ Şi Saul a zis slujitorilor săi de lângă el: ,,Ascultaţi, Beniamiţi! Vă va da fiul lui Isai la toţi ogoare şi vii? Va face el din voi toţi căpetenii peste o mie şi căpetenii peste o sută?

⁸ Dacă nu, de ce v-aţi unit toţi împotriva mea, şi nimeni nu mi-a dat de ştire despre legământul fiului meu cu fiul lui Isai? Pentruce n-a fost nimeni dintre voi pe care să-l doară inima pentru mine, şi să mă înştiinţeze că fiul meu a răsculat pe robul meu împotriva mea, ca să-mi întindă curse, cum face astăzi?``

⁹ Doeg, Edomitul, care era şi el printre slujitorii lui Saul, a răspuns: Eu am văzut pe fiul lui Isai venind la Nob, la Ahimelec, fiul lui Ahitub....

¹⁰ Ahimelec a întrebat pe Domnul pentru el, i-a dat merinde şi i-a dat sabia lui Goliat, Filisteanul.``

¹¹ Împăratul a trimes după Ahimelec, fiul lui Ahitub, preotul, şi după toată casa tatălui său, după preoţii cari erau la Nob. Ei au venit toţi la împărat.

¹² Saul a zis: ,,Ascultă, fiul lui Ahitub!`` El a răspuns: ,,Iată-mă, domnul meu!``

¹³ Saul i-a zis: ,,Pentruce v-aţi unit împotriva mea, tu şi fiul lui Isai? Pentruce i-ai dat pâne şi o sabie, şi ai întrebat pe Dumnezeu pentru el, ca să se ridice împotriva mea şi să-mi întindă curse, cum face astăzi?``

¹⁴ Ahimelec a răspuns împăratului: ,,Care dintre slujitorii tăi poate fi pus alături cu credinciosul David, ginerele împăratului, gata la poruncile lui, şi înconjurat cu cinste în casa ta?

¹⁵ Oare de astăzi am început eu să întreb pe Dumnezeu pentru el? Departe de mine aşa ceva! Să nu arunce împăratul nici o vină asupra robului său, nici asupra nimănui din casa tatălui meu, căci robul tău nu ştie nimic din toate acestea, nici lucru mic nici lucru mare.``

¹⁶ Împăratul a zis: ,,Trebuie să mori, Ahimelec, tu şi toată casa tatălui tău.``

¹⁷ Şi împăratul a zis alergătorilor cari stăteau lângă el: ,,Întoarceţi-vă, şi omorîţi pe preoţii Domnului; căci s-au învoit cu David: au ştiut bine că fuge, şi nu mi-au dat de veste.`` Dar slujitorii împăratului n-au voit să întindă mâna ca să lovească pe preoţii Domnului.

¹⁸ Atunci împăratul a zis lui Doeg: ,,Întoarce-te, şi loveşte pe preoţi.`` Şi Doeg, Edomitul, s-a întors, şi a lovit pe preoţi; a omorât în ziua aceea optzeci şi cinci de oameni, cari purtau efodul de in.

¹⁹ Saul a mai trecut prin ascuţişul săbiei cetatea preoţească Nob; bărbaţi şi femei, copii şi prunci, boi, măgari şi oi: toţi au căzut supt ascuţişul săbiei.

²⁰ Un fiu al lui Ahimelec, fiul lui Ahitub, a scăpat. Numele lui era Abiatar. A fugit la David,

²¹ şi i-a spus că Saul a ucis pe preoţii Domnului.

²² David a zis lui Abiatar: ,,M-am gândit chiar în ziua aceea că Doeg, Edomitul, fiind acolo, nu se putea să nu spună lui Saul. Eu sânt pricina morţii tuturor sufletelor din casa tatălui tău.

²³ Rămâi cu mine, nu te teme de nimic, căci cel ce caută să ia viaţa mea, caută s-o ia şi pe a ta; lângă mine vei fi bine păzit.``

{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":664,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Adullamite Adullam","title_en":"Adullamite Adullam","content_ro":"<h3>ADULLAM, ADULLAMITE<\/h3>\nOld Canaanite city between Lachish and Hebron, as well as a cave region nearby. The first biblical mention of the city is in the word “Adullamite” (someone from Adullam), used of Hirah, a friend of Judah. After acting as a ringleader in selling his brother Joseph into slavery, Judah left home and lived in Adullam with Hirah (Gn 38:1, 12, 20).<\/p>\nAdullam was in the lowlands of Judah’s tribal territory (Jos 15:35). It was one of 31 Canaanite royal cities conquered by Joshua (Jos 12:15) and one of 15 cities later fortified by King Rehoboam of Judah (2 Chr 11:7). After the exiles’ return from captivity in Babylon, Adullam was again resettled by Judah’s tribe (Neh 11:30).<\/p>\nA cave near Adullam figured in several events in David’s life. It was a refuge when he fled from King Saul (1 Sm 22:1) and a stronghold in his war against the Philistines (2 Sm 23:13-17; 1 Chr 11:15-19). The Hebrew superscriptions to Psalms 57 and 142 indicate that David wrote them at the time of his experiences in the cave. Adullam is identified as modern Tell esh-Sheikh Madhkur.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ADULLAM, ADULLAMITE<\/h3>\nOld Canaanite city between Lachish and Hebron, as well as a cave region nearby. The first biblical mention of the city is in the word “Adullamite” (someone from Adullam), used of Hirah, a friend of Judah. After acting as a ringleader in selling his brother Joseph into slavery, Judah left home and lived in Adullam with Hirah (Gn 38:1, 12, 20).<\/p>\nAdullam was in the lowlands of Judah’s tribal territory (Jos 15:35). It was one of 31 Canaanite royal cities conquered by Joshua (Jos 12:15) and one of 15 cities later fortified by King Rehoboam of Judah (2 Chr 11:7). After the exiles’ return from captivity in Babylon, Adullam was again resettled by Judah’s tribe (Neh 11:30).<\/p>\nA cave near Adullam figured in several events in David’s life. It was a refuge when he fled from King Saul (1 Sm 22:1) and a stronghold in his war against the Philistines (2 Sm 23:13-17; 1 Chr 11:15-19). The Hebrew superscriptions to Psalms 57 and 142 indicate that David wrote them at the time of his experiences in the cave. Adullam is identified as modern Tell esh-Sheikh Madhkur.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ADULLAM, ADULLAMITE Old Canaanite city between Lachish and Hebron, as well as a cave region nearby. The first biblical mention of the city is in the word “Adullamite” (someone from Adullam), used of Hirah, a friend of Judah. After acting as a ringleader in selling his brother Joseph into slavery, Judah left home and lived in Adullam with Hirah (Gn 38:1, 12, 20). Adullam was in the lowlands of Judah’s tribal territory (Jos 15:35). It was one of 31 Canaanite royal cities conquered by Joshua (Jo...","summary_en":"ADULLAM, ADULLAMITE Old Canaanite city between Lachish and Hebron, as well as a cave region nearby. The first biblical mention of the city is in the word “Adullamite” (someone from Adullam), used of Hirah, a friend of Judah. After acting as a ringleader in selling his brother Joseph into slavery, Judah left home and lived in Adullam with Hirah (Gn 38:1, 12, 20). Adullam was in the lowlands of Judah’s tribal territory (Jos 15:35). It was one of 31 Canaanite royal cities conquered by Joshua (Jo...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":8710,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\nIsrael’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\nThe two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Early Years<\/p>\n• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n• David as King<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\nEarly Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\nDavid was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\nLittle is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\nDavid was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\nIn Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\nPreparation for Kingship<\/p>\nDuring his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\nAs a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\nKilling Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\nSaul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\nIn the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\nAfter Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\nConferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\nFleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\nDavid’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\nThe Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\nAt his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\nDuring the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\nOnce more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\nDavid continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\nThe Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\nDavid as King<\/p>\nDavid ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\nDavid was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\nDavid was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\nSure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\nConfusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\nA kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\nWhen the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\nIn search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\nIn the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\nWith Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\nLittle is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIt is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\nDavid’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\nA lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\nAlthough polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\nDavid’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\nHaving incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\nOn his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\nAlthough David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\nThe military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\nDavid took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\nThrough the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\nThe OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\nDavid probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\nDavid’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nDavid, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\nEzekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\nDavid is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\nIsrael’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\nThe two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Early Years<\/p>\n• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n• David as King<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\nEarly Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\nDavid was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\nLittle is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\nDavid was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\nIn Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\nPreparation for Kingship<\/p>\nDuring his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\nAs a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\nKilling Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\nSaul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\nIn the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\nAfter Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\nConferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\nFleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\nDavid’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\nThe Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\nAt his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\nDuring the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\nOnce more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\nDavid continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\nThe Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\nDavid as King<\/p>\nDavid ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\nDavid was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\nDavid was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\nSure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\nConfusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\nA kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\nWhen the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\nIn search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\nIn the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\nWith Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\nLittle is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIt is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\nDavid’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\nA lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\nAlthough polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\nDavid’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\nHaving incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\nOn his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\nAlthough David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\nThe military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\nDavid took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\nThrough the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\nThe OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\nDavid probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\nDavid’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nDavid, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\nEzekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\nDavid is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","summary_en":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33811,"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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nFirst 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>\nThese 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 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 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 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>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nEven 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 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 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nThe 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>\nIt 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>\nThere 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>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\nGod 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nTwenty 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nAfter 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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>\nSaul’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>\nSaul 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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 Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\nIn 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>\nDavid’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>\nDavid 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>\nDavid 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>\nFrom 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>\nDoeg 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>\nDavid 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>\nWhile 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>\nWhile 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>\nDavid 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>\nFor 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nAlthough 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>\nUpon 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>\nAs 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>\nSubsequent 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>\nAlthough 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>\nAfter 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>\nRecognizing 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>\nIt 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>\nDavid 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>\nRemembering 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>\nDuring 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>\nDavid’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>\nAbsalom 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>\nIn 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>\nAt 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nThis 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>\nDavid’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>\nSee also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nFirst 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>\nThese 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 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 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 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>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nEven 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 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 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nThe 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>\nIt 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>\nThere 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>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\nGod 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nTwenty 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nAfter 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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>\nSaul’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>\nSaul 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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 Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\nIn 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>\nDavid’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>\nDavid 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>\nDavid 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>\nFrom 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>\nDoeg 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>\nDavid 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>\nWhile 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>\nWhile 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>\nDavid 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>\nFor 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nAlthough 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>\nUpon 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>\nAs 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>\nSubsequent 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>\nAlthough 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>\nAfter 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>\nRecognizing 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>\nIt 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>\nDavid 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>\nRemembering 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>\nDuring 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>\nDavid’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>\nAbsalom 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>\nIn 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>\nAt 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nThis 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>\nDavid’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>\nSee 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":38178,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\nThe 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\nMethods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\nCavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium 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>\nThe 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 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>\nDuring 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>\nAlthough 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>\nMost 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>\nThere 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>\nThe 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>\nMany 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>\nAn 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>\nFrom 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>\nIn 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>\nTactical 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>\nDirect 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 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>\nThe 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>\nMoving 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 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 AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nThe 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>\nA battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century 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>\nA 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>\nParticularly 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>\nThe 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 BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\nIn 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>\nFor 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>\nVarious 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>\nIn 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>\nOn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nFortifications and Defense<\/p>\nThe earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 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>\nBy 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>\nErection 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>\nThe 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>\nCasemate 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 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>\nAlthough 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, 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>\nIt 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>\nTo 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>\nAnother 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>\nA 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nUnless 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>\nStorage 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>\nThe 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>\nHebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\nIn 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>\nUntil 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>\nBecause 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>\nProvisioning 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>\nNot 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nThe Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 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 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>\nSee also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\nThe 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\nMethods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\nCavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium 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>\nThe 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 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>\nDuring 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>\nAlthough 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>\nMost 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>\nThere 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>\nThe 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>\nMany 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>\nAn 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>\nFrom 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>\nIn 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>\nTactical 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>\nDirect 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 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>\nThe 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>\nMoving 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 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 AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nThe 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>\nA battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century 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>\nA 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>\nParticularly 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>\nThe 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 BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\nIn 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>\nFor 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>\nVarious 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>\nIn 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>\nOn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nFortifications and Defense<\/p>\nThe earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 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>\nBy 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>\nErection 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>\nThe 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>\nCasemate 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 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>\nAlthough 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, 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>\nIt 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>\nTo 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>\nAnother 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>\nA 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nUnless 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>\nStorage 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>\nThe 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>\nHebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\nIn 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>\nUntil 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>\nBecause 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>\nProvisioning 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>\nNot 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nThe Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 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 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>\nSee 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":39788,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Some Psalms from David’s Experiences","title_en":"Psalms from David’s Experiences, Some","content_ro":"<table>\n <tr>\n <td>Psalm<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>Historical Reference<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>59<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 19:11<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>56<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>34<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:13<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>142<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>52<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:9<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>54<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 23:19<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>57<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>7<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:11-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>18<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 7:1; 22<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>32<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>51<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>3<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 15:16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>63<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 16:2<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<table>\n <tr>\n <td>Psalm<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>Historical Reference<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>59<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 19:11<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>56<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>34<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:13<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>142<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>52<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:9<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>54<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 23:19<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>57<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>7<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:11-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>18<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 7:1; 22<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>32<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>51<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>3<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 15:16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>63<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 16:2<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Psalm Historical Reference 59 1 Sm 19:11 56 1 Sm 21:10 34 1 Sm 21:13 142 1 Sm 22:1 52 1 Sm 22:9 54 1 Sm 23:19 57 1 Sm 24:1 7 1 Sm 24:11-12 18 2 Sm 7:1; 22 32 2 Sm 12:13-14 51 2 Sm 12:13-14 3 2 Sm 15:16 63 2 Sm 16:2","summary_en":"Psalm Historical Reference 59 1 Sm 19:11 56 1 Sm 21:10 34 1 Sm 21:13 142 1 Sm 22:1 52 1 Sm 22:9 54 1 Sm 23:19 57 1 Sm 24:1 7 1 Sm 24:11-12 18 2 Sm 7:1; 22 32 2 Sm 12:13-14 51 2 Sm 12:13-14 3 2 Sm 15:16 63 2 Sm 16:2","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46349,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","summary_en":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46350,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","summary_en":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73975,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","summary_en":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73976,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","summary_en":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101601,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","summary_en":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101602,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","summary_en":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129227,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1-23<\/strong> Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","summary_en":"22:1-23 Saul’s character becomes evident here. Unable to exact revenge on David himself, Saul slaughtered those he believed to be guilty of giving aid and comfort to David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129228,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:1","content_ro":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","content_en":"22:1<\/strong> Adullam<\/em> was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives<\/em> stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","summary_en":"22:1 Adullam was some sixteen miles southwest of Jerusalem, near Philistine territory. • Had David’s brothers and all his other relatives stayed in Bethlehem, they would have been vulnerable to Saul’s revenge.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62410,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":90036,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117662,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":145288,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"The Righteous Suffer","title_en":"The Righteous Suffer","content_ro":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>The Righteous Suffer<\/h3>\nThe book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies.<\/p>\nSin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and consequence. Some today blindly follow Job’s friends in equating godliness with material blessing. But at its root, this perspective is flawed, as demonstrated by the many examples throughout history of righteous suffering—including, of course, Christ himself. As believers we are told that “we must also share [Christ’s] suffering” and “what we suffer now is nothing compared to the glory he will reveal to us later” (Rom 8:17-18). At the core of being a disciple of Christ is a willingness to follow him into suffering (see Luke 9:23-25; Phil 3:10-11).<\/p>\nEven in his complaints, Job acknowledged that only God could provide the answers he needed. When Job wished for death, it was to gain relief until God could deal with him under more favorable conditions (14:13). When Job desired a mediator (9:33-35), it was to facilitate finding favor with God. When Job complained that God didn’t listen, it was because he knew that his answers had to come from God (see 19:25-27). That is the very essence of faith.<\/p>\nWe are not meant to know or understand everything (see Gen 2:16-17; Deut 29:29; Acts 1:7; 1 Thes 5:1-2). Some things are for God alone to comprehend and direct according to his sovereign will. Our response is to live by faith. Even when we suffer, we can trust God (see Rom 8:26-39).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\nGen 4:4-8; 26:17-33; 31:38-42; 37:2-36; 39:1-20; Exod 1:8-11; 1 Sam 18:10-11, 28-29; 19:10; 22:1-19; 1 Kgs 21:1-15; 2 Chr 24:20-22; Job 9:33-35; 14:13; 19:25-27; Isa 54:17; Jer 11:18-21; 26:1-23; 38:1-13; Matt 23:29-37; John 5:24; 15:20; Acts 6:8–7:60; Rom 8:17-18, 26-39; Heb 12:1-13; 1 Pet 4:12-16<\/p>","summary_ro":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","summary_en":"The Righteous Suffer The book of Job invites us to examine the basis of our faith in God. Job’s loss of possessions and family members and the alienation of his friends shook his faith to its foundation. However, he maintained his trust in God, and he proved Satan’s accusations to be lies. Sin undoubtedly brings suffering, but as the book of Job demonstrates, suffering is not necessarily the result of one’s sin. Human suffering is more complex than a simple equation of individual behavior and...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":9156,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Debt","title_en":"Debt","content_ro":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\nSomething owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\nIn Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\nThe Law of Moses<\/p>\nThe Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\nPortions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\nThat point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\nIn ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\nThe law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\nThe Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\nWhen it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\nIn drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\nA borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\nTwo legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\nEvery 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\nDebt in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\nJesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\nThe apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\nThe NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\nSin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DEBT<\/h3>\nSomething owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.”<\/p>\nIn Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so that borrowers never received the full value of the money. People could be ruined financially by heartless exaction of interest (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Another verb is usually translated as “increase” or “profit” (Lv 25:37), since lenders profited from others’ labor. Ancient Near Eastern interest rates on produce and goods might be as much as 30 percent of the loan per year; on money, as much as 20 percent. Clay tablets from Nuzi, an ancient town in northeastern Mesopotamia, indicate interest rates of even 50 percent.<\/p>\nThe Law of Moses<\/p>\nThe Mosaic covenant given to Israel immediately after the exodus sought to eliminate extortionist practices from Hebrew life. Thus God’s revelation had many rules and restrictions relating to debt and credit in Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>Protection for the Poor<\/h5>\nPortions of the legislative sections of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) regulated the practice of lending in a way that protected the poor and secured each person’s right to earn a living and support a family. Many popular Hebrew proverbs dealt with that theme. The positive thrust of the biblical laws was to ensure help for the financially needy, without interest. No personal profit was to be made at the expense of the poor (Ex 22:25; Dt 23:19-20); God was their special advocate. Thus, by lending without interest, the Israelites could demonstrate their reverence for God (Lv 25:35-37).<\/p>\nThat point was reemphasized 40 years later when Moses renewed the covenant with Israel just before their entrance into the Promised Land. God was the landlord, and his tenants were to respect his word. God promised the Israelites that if they would lend so as to alleviate human misery, they would be unusually blessed by the Lord (Dt 15:6; 23:19-20; 28:12). Interest could be charged to a foreigner not living under the Mosaic law, which was a condition parallel to commercial treaties prevalent in the ancient Near East.<\/p>\nIn ancient Israel, financial ruin was frequently brought about by poor harvests. Often they were taken as an indication that the relationship between God and his people was not right (Lv 26:14, 20). The wealthy were expected to help, not to add more burdens to those who suffered from poor harvests.<\/p>\n<h5>Violation of the Law<\/h5>\nThe law was so often violated that eventually exorbitant interest became a social plague, making the situation of debtors hopeless. Many of the fighting men who rallied around David early in his military career were “outlaws” unable to repay their loans and interest (1 Sm 22:2). The prophet Ezekiel called people to task for their failure to observe God’s commands about usury (Ez 18:5-18; 22:12). When Nehemiah returned from the exile to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, he brought charges against the government officials whose interest rates had enslaved the people (Neh 5:6-13).<\/p>\nThe Wisdom Literature, which included Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, added that those who acquired riches by usury would not profit in the long run, because God would give their profits to others who looked after the welfare of the poor (e.g., Prv 28:8). The prophet Amos gave a similar warning to corrupt merchants in Israel: “Because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, . . . you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine” (Am 5:11, rsv<\/span>). In spite of such warnings, the law was often ignored, and burdensome interest charges were laid on borrowers who were already poor.<\/p>\n<h5>Pledges and Surety<\/h5>\nWhen it was necessary to borrow, the law provided alternatives to the unfair practice of usury. When taking out a loan, a borrower would surrender some movable property as collateral to ensure repayment. That “pledge” represented a tangible sign of the debtor’s intention to repay the loan. Certain restrictions applied to such pledges. For example, a creditor could not take a widow’s clothes (Dt 24:17). Tools (such as millstones) or animals (such as oxen) necessary for daily life were forbidden as pledges (v 6). Clothing absolutely essential to the borrower (e.g., to keep warm) could be temporarily offered as a pledge, but the temporary token had to be returned before nightfall (Ex 22:26-27; Dt 24:10-13).<\/p>\nIn drastic circumstances, where there was no collateral, a debtor could pledge a son, daughter, or slave. The value of the child’s or slave’s labor could then be credited against both interest and principal. An account in the Bible of a widow’s two sons about to go into slavery shows how cruel the custom could be (2 Kgs 4:1-7). Pledging labor or their children’s labor was the only way slaves could pay off a debt when they had to borrow.<\/p>\nA borrower could also have a wealthy friend assume responsibility as a cosigner on a loan and thus become the pledge, or surety. The book of Proverbs cautioned against standing surety for others, however, especially for strangers (Prv 6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26; 27:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Sabbatical and Jubilee Years<\/h5>\nTwo legal provisions to curb the enslavement of people by long-standing debts were the sabbatical year and the jubilee year. The sabbatical year, or “year of release,” took place every seventh year. At that time debts were canceled and slates wiped clean (Dt 15:1-12; cf. Ex 21:2; 23:10-11; Lv 25:2-7). The law clearly forbade lenders to withhold loans to those in desperate need during a sixth year. Jewish tradition held strict injunctions against a lender trying to collect on a loan that should have been forgiven in the sabbatical year.<\/p>\nEvery 50 years Israel had its Year of Jubilee. In that year land reverted to its original owner if it had not already been redeemed by some relative. That provision prevented the buildup of landed estates by the wealthy few while the many poor suffered in slavery (Lv 25:13-17). Although the Mosaic law could not guarantee economic utopia, it sought to curb the greediness in human nature. It also aimed at providing everyone with an equal opportunity and a fresh start every 50 years.<\/p>\nDebt in the New Testament<\/p>\nThe NT shows how various cultures handled the matter of loans and debts. There were Jewish people who adhered strictly to the Mosaic law and refused to charge their fellow Jews high interest. Hellenistic and Roman legal practices, however, penetrated parts of Jewish society.<\/p>\n<h5>Jesus’ Parables<\/h5>\nJesus alluded to non-Jewish economic practices in his parable of a servant who jailed a fellow slave for not repaying a loan (Mt 18:23-35). The parable illustrates the ordinary Hellenistic and Roman custom of jailing or restraining such a person as surety. That practice forced a debtor to sell his property, to ask family and friends to cover the loss, or to sell himself into slavery. The parable of the talents (25:14-28) and the parable of the pounds (Lk 19:12-24), speaking allegorically about the kingdom of God, mention earning interest on money invested with bankers.<\/p>\n<h5>Economic and Theological Instruction<\/h5>\nThe apostle Paul instructed Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom 13:8), which means at the very least that Christians should make good on loans promptly. On the other hand, a Christian’s economic activity should be characterized by kindness toward those in need, generosity, and willingness to help (Mt 5:42; Lk 6:35).<\/p>\nThe NT also presents a number of lessons in doctrine based on a figurative use of “debts” and “debtors.” Jesus once referred to sinners (Lk 13:2) with a word literally meaning “debtors” (v 4). In the Lord’s Prayer “debts” is paralleled with “sins” (Mt 6:12; Lk 11:4).<\/p>\nSin is seen as an enslavement (Jn 8:34), and all men and women as debtors to God. Redemption can be made only by God, who “gave his only Son” to set people free (3:16-18). The writer to the Hebrews showed that Jesus was made the surety of the new covenant (Heb 7:22).<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul felt indebted to all people because of his own salvation, a debt he could pay by preaching the gospel (Rom 1:14-15). The NT teaches that all who receive the gospel are likewise in debt and therefore should devote themselves to serving others as a way of serving God (cf. 15:26-27).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Banker, Banking; Money.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","summary_en":"DEBT Something owed to another person, such as goods, property, or money. In the Bible, righteous conduct is something one “owes” to God; hence, in theology, sin is described figuratively as being “in debt.” In Hebrew culture, debt was usually connected with usury (the business of lending money on interest). The Hebrew verbs describing usury picture a painful situation. One word for usury means “to bite,” a vivid image for the way high interest “ate up” any kind of business transaction so tha...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38179,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Warfare","title_en":"Warfare","content_ro":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\nThe 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\nMethods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\nCavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium 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>\nThe 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 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>\nDuring 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>\nAlthough 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>\nMost 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>\nThere 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>\nThe 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>\nMany 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>\nAn 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>\nFrom 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>\nIn 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>\nTactical 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>\nDirect 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 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>\nThe 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>\nMoving 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 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 AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nThe 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>\nA battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century 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>\nA 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>\nParticularly 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>\nThe 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 BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\nIn 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>\nFor 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>\nVarious 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>\nIn 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>\nOn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nFortifications and Defense<\/p>\nThe earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 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>\nBy 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>\nErection 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>\nThe 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>\nCasemate 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 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>\nAlthough 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, 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>\nIt 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>\nTo 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>\nAnother 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>\nA 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nUnless 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>\nStorage 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>\nThe 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>\nHebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\nIn 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>\nUntil 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>\nBecause 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>\nProvisioning 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>\nNot 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nThe Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 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 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>\nSee also<\/em> Armor and Weapons.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WARFARE<\/h3>\nThe 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\nMethods of Warfare<\/p>\n<h5>Standard Combat<\/h5>\nCavalry units were introduced at the close of the second millennium 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>\nThe 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 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>\nDuring 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>\nAlthough 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>\nMost 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>\nThere 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>\nThe 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>\nMany 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>\nAn 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>\nFrom 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>\nIn 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>\nTactical 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>\nDirect 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 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>\nThe 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>\nMoving 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nThe battering ram continued to be used as an engine for breaching walls in the Hellenistic-Roman period. In 63 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 AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nThe 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>\nA battle scene depicted on limestone in the tomb of Anta at Dashashe in Upper Egypt (24th century 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>\nA 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>\nParticularly 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>\nThe 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 BC<\/span> by Demetrius I. He may have borrowed the idea from the Phoenicians at Carthage.<\/p>\nIn 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>\nFor 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>\nVarious 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>\nIn 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>\nOn 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>\nThe 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>\nThe 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>\nFortifications and Defense<\/p>\nThe earliest known fortifications in the world, dated by some to about 7000 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>\nBy 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>\nErection 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>\nThe 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>\nCasemate 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 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>\nAlthough 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, 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>\nIt 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>\nTo 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>\nAnother 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>\nA 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>\nThe 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>\nIn 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>\nUnless 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>\nStorage 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>\nThe 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>\nHebrew Military Organization<\/p>\n<h5>Tribal Army<\/h5>\nIn 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>\nUntil 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>\nBecause 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>\nProvisioning 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>\nNot 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nThe Davidic dynasty maintained a permanent mercenary army until 701 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 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>\nSee 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":46351,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:2","content_ro":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","content_en":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","summary_en":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73977,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:2","content_ro":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","content_en":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","summary_en":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101603,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:2","content_ro":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","content_en":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","summary_en":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129229,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:2","content_ro":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","content_en":"22:2<\/strong> in trouble . . . in debt . . .<\/em> discontented:<\/em> By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","summary_en":"22:2 in trouble . . . in debt . . . discontented: By attracting such down-and-out people to himself, David foreshadowed Jesus, who would attract to himself the hurting, the burdened, and the outcast (Matt 11:25-30).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":19377,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesse (Person)","title_en":"Jesse (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JESSE (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nSon of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors.<\/p>\nWhen Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from Saul, Jesse and others of the family came to David in the cave of Adullam. David then brought his father and mother to Mizpah in Moab (22:3). Nothing further is heard of Jesse.<\/p>\nAfter Saul broke with David, he commonly spoke of David derisively as a “son of Jesse” to underscore his humble origins (1 Sm 20:31; 22:7). This same emphasis on Jesse’s modest station in life is found in such messianic references as Isaiah 11:1 and 10, which speak of the “shoot from the stump of Jesse” and “the root of Jesse” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David; Jesse, Root of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESSE (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nSon of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors.<\/p>\nWhen Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from Saul, Jesse and others of the family came to David in the cave of Adullam. David then brought his father and mother to Mizpah in Moab (22:3). Nothing further is heard of Jesse.<\/p>\nAfter Saul broke with David, he commonly spoke of David derisively as a “son of Jesse” to underscore his humble origins (1 Sm 20:31; 22:7). This same emphasis on Jesse’s modest station in life is found in such messianic references as Isaiah 11:1 and 10, which speak of the “shoot from the stump of Jesse” and “the root of Jesse” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David; Jesse, Root of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESSE (Person) Son of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors. When Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from S...","summary_en":"JESSE (Person) Son of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors. When Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from S...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26125,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Mizpah","title_en":"Mizpah","content_ro":"<h3>MIZPAH<\/h3>\nName meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha.<\/p>\n1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories.<\/p>\n<li>2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites.<\/li>\n<li>3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38.<\/li>\n<li>4. Place in the tribal area of Benjamin (Jos 18:26). It was here that the Israelites gathered to war against the tribe of Benjamin (Jgs 20:1; 21:1) after the men of Gibeah had abused and killed the concubine of a visiting Levite. It was here that Samuel called all Israel together to pray for victory over the Philistines (1 Sm 7:5-8). Later, Samuel called for an assembly at Mizpah to publicly designate Saul as king and to instruct the people and king in the ways of the kingdom (10:17-25). In the time of Asa, Mizpah was a fortified town on the border between Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 15:22). After the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC<\/span> to the Babylonians, Mizpah became the residence of Gedaliah the governor (2 Kgs 25:23-24; Jer 40:10), who was murdered there by Ishmael of the “royal seed” (Jer 41:3). Two days later Ishmael murdered a company of pilgrims who were going to Jerusalem to bring their offerings at the ruined temple, and he cast their bodies into a cistern that had been constructed centuries earlier by Asa.<\/li>\nIn the intertestamental period Mizpah continued to be an important religious center. Judas Maccabeus called the people together at Mizpah “because Israel formerly had a place of prayer in Mizpah” (1 Macc 3:46).<\/p>\n<li>5. Home of Jephthah, from which he led the Israelites in battle against the Ammonites, and to which he returned to carry out his vow (Jgs 10–11). This is possibly the same place as the Ramath-mizpeh of Joshua 13:26 and is thought by many to be identified with Khirbat Jal’ad just south of the Jabbok.<\/li>\n<li>6. Town in Moab to which David fled from Saul (1 Sm 22:3).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>MIZPAH<\/h3>\nName meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha.<\/p>\n1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories.<\/p>\n<li>2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites.<\/li>\n<li>3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38.<\/li>\n<li>4. Place in the tribal area of Benjamin (Jos 18:26). It was here that the Israelites gathered to war against the tribe of Benjamin (Jgs 20:1; 21:1) after the men of Gibeah had abused and killed the concubine of a visiting Levite. It was here that Samuel called all Israel together to pray for victory over the Philistines (1 Sm 7:5-8). Later, Samuel called for an assembly at Mizpah to publicly designate Saul as king and to instruct the people and king in the ways of the kingdom (10:17-25). In the time of Asa, Mizpah was a fortified town on the border between Israel and Judah (1 Kgs 15:22). After the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC<\/span> to the Babylonians, Mizpah became the residence of Gedaliah the governor (2 Kgs 25:23-24; Jer 40:10), who was murdered there by Ishmael of the “royal seed” (Jer 41:3). Two days later Ishmael murdered a company of pilgrims who were going to Jerusalem to bring their offerings at the ruined temple, and he cast their bodies into a cistern that had been constructed centuries earlier by Asa.<\/li>\nIn the intertestamental period Mizpah continued to be an important religious center. Judas Maccabeus called the people together at Mizpah “because Israel formerly had a place of prayer in Mizpah” (1 Macc 3:46).<\/p>\n<li>5. Home of Jephthah, from which he led the Israelites in battle against the Ammonites, and to which he returned to carry out his vow (Jgs 10–11). This is possibly the same place as the Ramath-mizpeh of Joshua 13:26 and is thought by many to be identified with Khirbat Jal’ad just south of the Jabbok.<\/li>\n<li>6. Town in Moab to which David fled from Saul (1 Sm 22:3).<\/li>","summary_ro":"MIZPAH Name meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha. 1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories. 2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites. 3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38. ...","summary_en":"MIZPAH Name meaning “watchtower” in Hebrew (alternately spelled Mizpeh) used to designate a number of different locations mentioned in the OT and Apocrypha. 1. Place in Gilead where Jacob and Laban made a covenant (Gn 31:49) and set up a heap of stones to mark the borders between their territories. 2. Place referred to as “the land of Mizpah” (Jos 11:3) or the “valley of Mizpah” (Jos 11:8) near Mt Hermon and inhabited by the Hivites. 3. Town in Judah near Lachish referred to in Joshua 15:38. ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33378,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Ruth","title_en":"Book of Ruth","content_ro":"<h3>RUTH, Book of<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\n• Message<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nThe author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions (see 1 Sm 22:3-5). Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar.<\/p>\nThe time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled. . . .” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century BC<\/span>, or about 100 years before David’s birth.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction (1:1-5)<\/h5>\nDriven by famine, Elimelech, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)<\/h5>\nHearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye.<\/p>\nBut Ruth “clung to her” (1:18). The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage (Gn 2:24). Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments (Ru 1:16-17). In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the God of Israel and his laws. Ruth’s appeal to the God of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together.<\/p>\nTheir arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” (bitter). But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Reaping in the Fields of Boaz (2:1-23)<\/h5>\nThe first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech.<\/p>\nIn the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields—a provision for the poor contained in the law (Lv 19:9-10).<\/p>\nRuth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favored position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men—an unorthodox arrangement.<\/p>\nRuth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she—as a foreigner—should receive such favor. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s God, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ru 2:12, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nShe was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption (see discussion below). Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Relying upon the Kinsman (3:1-18)<\/h5>\nNaomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a go’el<\/span>,<\/em> or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain coloring to it. (1) Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one (3:12). Consequently, according to Israelite law (Dt 25:5ff.), it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died. (2) The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a God-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counseled here that is repugnant to God’s law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose.<\/p>\nBoaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.<\/p>\n<h5>Redeeming the Inheritance (4:1-22)<\/h5>\nBoaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” (4:5, nlt<\/span>). The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. (The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.) So Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.<\/p>\nMessage<\/p>\nFirst, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfillment in Jesus.<\/p>\nA second teaching is the beauty of God’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing.<\/p>\nTheologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman.<\/p>\nAnd finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law . . . loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” (4:15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>RUTH, Book of<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\n• Message<\/p>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nThe author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not approved in the book of Ruth, it scarcely could have been written during the period in which Solomon began his policy of foreign marriages. Also, David’s close friendship with Moab might have prompted someone in his kingdom to write the book, thus presenting objective rationale for David’s actions (see 1 Sm 22:3-5). Consequently, the author may have been someone close to David, possibly Samuel, Nathan, or Abiathar.<\/p>\nThe time of the narrative is indicated by the opening statement: “In the days when the judges ruled. . . .” The dates of the judges probably comprise a period of about 300 years, beginning with the judgeship of Othniel and concluding with that of Samson, though Samuel also served as a judge. If the genealogical information is complete in Ruth 4:18-22, the events took place during the life of David’s great-grandfather and mark the birth of his grandfather. Allowing a 35-year generation span, the events would have taken place somewhere about the turn of the 11th century BC<\/span>, or about 100 years before David’s birth.<\/p>\nPurpose<\/p>\nThe book’s purpose is closely related to its date of composition. Assuming an early date, that is, one close to David’s lifetime, its principal thrust must be the authentication of the Davidic line. The book may be considered as a justification for including the godly Moabitess in the nation of Israel.<\/p>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction (1:1-5)<\/h5>\nDriven by famine, Elimelech, with his wife, Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, cross the Jordan to stay for a period of time in Moab, where there is sufficient provision. The two sons, after marrying Moabite women, die, and their father dies as well. Naomi is left a widow, with two foreign daughters-in-law.<\/p>\n\n<h5>Return to Bethlehem (1:6-22)<\/h5>\nHearing reports from Bethlehem that the famine has ended, Naomi makes preparations to return. Both of her daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth, accompany her for at least a portion of the journey. Probably thinking of the problems they might encounter as foreigners in Judah, Naomi strongly urges the girls to stay in their own land. Both of the young widows refuse, but Naomi presents the facts. First, she is not pregnant, so the chance of a younger brother fulfilling the levirate responsibility is not imminent. Second, she has no prospects of remarriage and consequently no prospect of further children. Then she also notes that even if the first two conditions were met immediately, the possibility of their waiting was impossible. Orpah is persuaded and kisses her mother-in-law good-bye.<\/p>\nBut Ruth “clung to her” (1:18). The verb, having the connotation of being glued to something, is the same verb used of marriage (Gn 2:24). Ruth demonstrated her serious intentions by making five commitments (Ru 1:16-17). In essence, Ruth renounced her former life in order to gain a life that she considered of greater value. She decided to follow the God of Israel and his laws. Ruth’s appeal to the God of Israel was more than equal to Naomi’s pleas, and the two of them returned together.<\/p>\nTheir arrival in Bethlehem was traumatic for Naomi. Having left Bethlehem with a husband and two sons, she returned empty. She told her friends to call her “Mara” (bitter). But she had returned at a propitious time, the beginning of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Reaping in the Fields of Boaz (2:1-23)<\/h5>\nThe first verse of the chapter provides the setting for the narrative that follows by introducing Boaz, a wealthy relative of Elimelech.<\/p>\nIn the second verse, Ruth volunteered to glean the fields by following the reapers and picking up the small amounts left behind. Gleaners were also permitted to harvest the grain in the corners of the fields—a provision for the poor contained in the law (Lv 19:9-10).<\/p>\nRuth happened to come to the field of Boaz. When he visited this field, he noticed Ruth, inquired about her, and learned her identity. His overseer reported that she had industriously worked the fields from early morning until that time. Boaz, attracted to her because of her loyalty and concern for Naomi, graciously made additional provisions for her. She was given a favored position in reaping, directly behind the main body of reapers. Further, she was to receive water that had been drawn for her by the young men—an unorthodox arrangement.<\/p>\nRuth, falling before Boaz in a gesture of great humility and respect, asked why she—as a foreigner—should receive such favor. Boaz gave two reasons: her kindness to her mother-in-law, and her spiritual insight, which led her to seek after Israel’s God, “under whose wings you have come to take refuge” (Ru 2:12, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nShe was also given a place at the reapers’ table and, upon Boaz’s orders, returned to the fields, this time to reap from the unharvested grain. At the end of the day she returned home to Naomi and told her of the day’s events. Naomi informed Ruth that Boaz had the right of redemption (see discussion below). Ruth returned to his fields until the end of the harvest season.<\/p>\n<h5>Relying upon the Kinsman (3:1-18)<\/h5>\nNaomi advised Ruth to approach Boaz as a go’el<\/span>,<\/em> or kinsman-redeemer. The plan suggested by Naomi seems peculiar, yet some thoughts may give a certain coloring to it. (1) Naomi seems to have believed that Boaz was the nearest kinsman, being ignorant of the yet nearer one (3:12). Consequently, according to Israelite law (Dt 25:5ff.), it would be the duty of Boaz to marry Ruth to produce offspring, since her husband died. (2) The general presentation of Naomi’s character in this book is that of a God-fearing woman. It is certain that, however curious in its external form, there can be nothing counseled here that is repugnant to God’s law or shocking to a virtuous man such as Boaz. Otherwise, Naomi would have been frustrating her own purpose.<\/p>\nBoaz’s response to Ruth’s actions demonstrated his gentlemanly concerns for her. He explained to her that he was not the nearest kinsman but promised that he would take care of the necessary procedures the next day. Protecting her reputation, Boaz sent her home before daylight. Naomi predicted that Boaz would settle the matter that very day.<\/p>\n<h5>Redeeming the Inheritance (4:1-22)<\/h5>\nBoaz went to the place of business, the city gate. The city gate area comprised the forum where the public affairs of the city were discussed. Boaz indicated that he wished to discuss a matter of business with the nearer kinsman. Ten of the city elders acted as witnesses. The first matter at hand was to deal with the issue of property. Boaz asked this nearer kinsman if he was willing to acquire property for Naomi. This is stated in the traditional stipulation: “Your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow” (4:5, nlt<\/span>). The nearer kinsman was unwilling to marry Ruth because this would inevitably cost him some financial loss, since he would have to divide his own property with any son of his born to Ruth. Thus he relinquished his rights by the custom of taking off his shoe. (The shoe was symbolic of the land rights that belonged to the inheritance.) So Boaz took the part of being the kinsman-redeemer. The marriage of Boaz and Ruth produced a son who, under Israel’s laws, was reckoned as Naomi’s child and heir.<\/p>\nMessage<\/p>\nFirst, the book of Ruth traces the lineage of Ruth to David. The completion of that line is in Matthew 1 and finds its fulfillment in Jesus.<\/p>\nA second teaching is the beauty of God’s grace. A foreigner, even a Moabitess, can be linked with Israel’s blessing.<\/p>\nTheologically, the concept of kinsman-redeemer as a type of Messiah is clearly evident. He must be a blood relative, have the ability to purchase, be willing to buy the inheritance, and be willing to marry the widow of the deceased kinsman.<\/p>\nAnd finally, the love that Ruth showed to Naomi provides a pattern of devotion. The women of Bethlehem told Naomi, “Your daughter-in-law . . . loves you so much and [is] better to you than seven sons!” (4:15, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>","summary_ro":"RUTH, Book of Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Content • Message Author and Date The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not ...","summary_en":"RUTH, Book of Preview • Author and Date • Purpose • Content • Message Author and Date The author of the book is unknown. The question of authorship has particular connection with the date of writing, and a few clues provide at least an educated guess. The book must have been written sometime after the beginning of David’s reign. The information in Ruth 4:18-22, which pertains to the historical significance of Ruth as David’s great-grandmother, bears this out. Since foreign marriages were not ...","source":"Articles\/R.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37605,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Travel","title_en":"Travel","content_ro":"<h3>TRAVEL<\/h3>\nIn biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine.<\/p>\n\nTravel in Old Testament Times<\/p>\nSeveral accounts depict the people of Israel moving over restricted areas to graze their flocks. Joseph’s brothers took their flocks from the south of the land up to Shechem and then to Dothan (Gn 37:12-17), but this was a mere 60 miles (96.5 kilometers). David traveled around Palestine and even went to Moab (1 Sm 22:3). The Danites moved from their home southwest of Jerusalem to the north, just south of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 18).<\/p>\nExamples of travel for pasturage, migration, and protection could be multiplied. Such travelers would normally walk, though the ass was used both for riding and as a pack animal. The ox was employed for transporting heavy loads and sometimes for people (Gn 46:5). Later the camel came into general use (1 Kgs 10:2; 2 Kgs 8:9). Little is known of resting places for travelers in OT times. There are only a few references to a “lodging place” (malon<\/span>) in OT narratives (Gn 42:27; 43:21; Ex 4:24).<\/p>\nTravel in New Testament Times<\/p>\nThe Roman world knew a great deal of travel: to fulfill religious obligations at festival time, for trade, for government administration, for military purposes. Not the least among first-century travelers were the early Christian missionaries.<\/p>\nThe advent of Roman peace and authority and the construction of well-made stone roads made travel relatively safe and quick. The modes of travel improved over that known in OT times. Long distances were traveled within the Roman Empire over good roads and in comparative safety. There were some hazards, however, notably in sea travel, from wind, storms, and pirates (Acts 15:39; 18:18-22; Rom 15:24-25; 2 Cor 11:25-26). Paul’s sea journey to Rome, for example, was perilous (Acts 27:1–28:14).<\/p>\nThe NT mentions a number of journeys on foot. Mary journeyed from Galilee to Judea to visit Elizabeth (Lk 1:39-40, 56). The baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the census (2:1-7); Jesus was brought to Jerusalem to comply with the Jewish purification law (v 22). Thus three trips were made from Nazareth to Jerusalem, a distance of about 70 miles (112.6 kilometers), from the time of Jesus’ conception to Mary’s purification. The annual Passover visit was made by Joseph and Mary (vv 41-51). Other journeys are mentioned (Jn 2:13; 5:1; 7:1-10; 12:1). Jesus himself walked to Jericho from Galilee (Mk 1:1-11) and also to the region of Tyre and Sidon (7:24). He was in Samaria more than once (Lk 17:11; Jn 4:4). His last journey to Jerusalem was via Jericho and up through the hills to Jerusalem (Mk 10:1, 46; 11:1). His last journey after the resurrection was to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35).<\/p>\nPaul traveled by sea on each of his missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-14; 15:41–18:22; 18:23–21:17), generally accompanied by friends. He also made many journeys on foot in Palestine, Asia Minor, and the Greek peninsula. But not all travel was on foot in NT times. The ass, used for carrying loads, often carried people. Jesus once rode from Bethphage to Jerusalem, a short but highly symbolic journey (Mt 21:2-7; Mk 11:1-11; Jn 12:12-15). When Joseph traveled with his pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem for the census at the time of Jesus’ birth, Mary probably rode on an ass. The Ethiopian eunuch was riding in a chariot after worshiping at Jerusalem and was joined by Philip traveling on foot (Acts 8:26-38). Roman soldiers both marched and made wide use of horses. When Paul was brought to Caesarea from Jerusalem, mounts were prepared for him (23:23-24).<\/p>\nRoads and Sea Lanes<\/p>\nThe roads of biblical times figured prominently in the geography, topography, and history of Palestine—a land that served as a bridge between Egypt and centers of civilization and trade in the Middle East. Many of the roads were strategically important, both commercially and militarily. Some roads gained significance as pilgrim routes to facilitate travel to religious centers like Jerusalem. Roads in biblical times were of three main types: long-distance international roads, medium-distance intraregional roads, and a variety of roads inside each region or state.<\/p>\n<h5>Great International Roads<\/h5>\nThese linked the Mediterranean coast to the northern Tigris Valley and southern Mesopotamia. Some linked Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, while others led south to Egypt, either along the coast or east of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea and across the Sinai Peninsula. There were trade routes between Anatolia and Assyria early in the second millennium BC<\/span>. Apparently the military campaign referred to in Genesis 14 aimed to secure the great trade route, the King’s Highway, from northern Mesopotamia to Egypt. Military invaders and travelers from Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia would head across the hinterlands of Syria toward the coast before turning south into Palestine and Egypt. The advent of European powers, Greece and Rome, into the Middle East opened up another vast network of international roads for the peoples of the East. Until Roman times, these roads were not surfaced with stone but were cleared pathways. They were very rough, ungraded, and in wet weather, impassable in many places. But they were evidently well defined by “waymarks” and “guideposts” (Jer 31:21). With the coming of the Romans, important roads were built with deep foundations and with large blocks of flat stone at the surface. The remains of these roads are still seen in many places in the Middle East and in Europe. Distance markers or milestones were regularly placed along the roads.<\/p>\n<h5>International North-South Roads in Palestine<\/h5>\nThe roads that linked countries to the north with Egypt passed through Palestine, a natural land bridge. There were three major roads. The coastal road began in Damascus and passed via Hazor across the plain of Esdraelon, through the Megiddo Pass, down the coast past Gaza and into Egypt. This was probably “the way of the sea” (Is 9:1). The Sinai road led from Egypt into the southern Negev and then to Kadesh-barnea, Beersheba, Hebron, Jerusalem, Shechem, Acco, Tyre, and Sidon. The Red Sea road entered the Palestine area from the Gulf of Aqaba, where the ancient port of Elath and Solomon’s port of Ezion-geber stood (Nm 33:35; 2 Chr 8:17). From there it led through the mountainous areas of Transjordan, crossing the deep wadis and then north through the Hauran region to Damascus. This was the road taken by caravans from southern Arabia to Damascus, the ancient King’s Highway (Nm 20:17; 21:22).<\/p>\nThere were other north-south roads of lesser importance. One coastal road led from Joppa via Caesarea and Dor to Acco, where it linked with the Sinai road. Evidently it was not very significant until Roman times, when the port of Caesarea was built. The marshes in the plain of Sharon posed many problems. The plain of Esdraelon was also marshy and interrupted the roads north in bad seasons. A raised road across the swampy sections was eventually constructed. Another road led north from Hazor, branching off the main trunk road to Damascus. The Jordan Valley road skirted the southwestern part of Galilee and led down the Jordan Valley to Jericho.<\/p>\n<h5>East-West Roads<\/h5>\nSeveral important roads ran east-west, intersecting the larger roads leading north. One such road led from Gaza to Beersheba and then down the Arabah, with an offshoot to Petra. Another led from Ashkelon, via Gath, to Hebron and on to En-gedi on the Dead Sea. Another road led from Joppa east up the valley of Aijalon (Jos 10:6-14) to Bethel and on to Jericho. One well-used road led from Joppa to Shechem, across the Jordan at Adam (3:16) and into Gilead in Transjordan. Other roads led from Acco eastward to Galilee and also up the coast to Tyre and Sidon. There were, indeed, numerous east-west roads that provided contact between various parts of Palestine. In Roman times, when the speedy movement of armies was essential, some of the old roads were greatly improved and new ones built.<\/p>\n<h5>Sea Lanes<\/h5>\nThe people of Israel, unlike the Phoenicians, seldom used the sea lanes. When Solomon planned to send ships down the Red Sea to Ophir (1 Kgs 9:26-28), he used Phoenician seamen. Jehoshaphat planned a similar expedition, but his ships were wrecked (22:48-49). Coastal traffic in OT times was in the hands of Philistines and Phoenicians. There were several ports along the Mediterranean Sea coast, such as Gaza, Joppa, Dor, and Acco, but none was very good. There were also sea lanes linking the Mediterranean coast with Egypt and distant Tarshish (probably Spain). The other coastal water was the Gulf of Aqaba with its two ports—Ezion-geber for Transjordan, and Elath for west of the Jordan. Solomon’s fleet used Ezion-geber as its home port.<\/p>\n\nIn NT times things changed considerably. The Middle East produced commodities used by peoples farther west, especially the Romans. Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria handled both cargo and travelers. Smaller ports like those in Palestine and many others around the coast of Asia Minor provided a haven for ships. One ingenious scheme to avoid a 200-mile (321.8-kilometer) journey around the Greek peninsula was to drag small boats across the five-mile- (8-kilometer-) wide isthmus at Corinth. Even the largest ship in NT times was in danger from wind and storm at sea (Acts 27), so sea travel was undertaken preferably when the risk of storms was minimal, roughly from November to March. There was a lot of sea traffic in the Mediterranean Sea at appropriate seasons, largely for trade. Grain ships crossed regularly from Rome to Egypt and to the east.<\/p>\nShips were driven by sail power supplemented as necessary by oars operated by slaves. Some indication of the size of ships comes from the discovery of ancient wrecks and from Latin and Greek literature. An old dry dock 130 feet (39.6 meters) long found near Athens was once used for Greek war vessels, which were smaller than the cargo vessels. The Roman writer Lucian refers to an Alexandrian grain ship 180 feet (54.9 meters) long, suggesting a capacity of about 1,200 tons (1,088.6 metric tons). Paul’s ship carried 276 persons (Acts 27:37). Modern underwater archaeology is providing valuable information about these ancient ships.<\/p>\n<h5>Reasons for Travel<\/h5>\nThe most important reason for travel in NT times was for trade and commerce, which involved far more than merely transporting goods. There were agents, supervisors, insurers of cargo, bankers, and a whole range of people involved in the acquisition and safe delivery of the cargo.<\/p>\nMilitary travel was considerable. A wide variety of tasks had to be undertaken in the way of reconnaissance, procuring of supplies, forward arrangements for the bivouacking of troops, and the transport of both troops and equipment.<\/p>\nSome travelers were tradespeople changing their place of employment, like Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3). Aquila had traveled from Pontus on the Black Sea to Rome and then, in a time of persecution, he had fled to Corinth with his wife. Many others traveled for similar reasons.<\/p>\nPeople on religious pilgrimage traveled by land or sea. Jews from many lands journeyed to Jerusalem for the annual Passover festivities (cf. Acts 2:5-11). Non-Jews went to religious centers at Ephesus, Athens, and Eleusis, where there were important temples. Many minor temples also attracted pilgrims. The construction of new temples and a variety of government administration buildings brought craftsmen from afar. Often the materials used in construction had to be transported to the site. Some people made trips for health reasons to temples famed for healing miracles or to enjoy the benefits of hot springs like those at Capernaum or Tiberias. Athletes traveled to centers for important contests like the Olympic games, and crowds of people flocked to witness the spectacle. Some travelers were students or teachers going to great centers of learning—the universities of those times. Yet others traveled as official emissaries bearing important government and commercial documents. Despite all this activity, vast numbers of ordinary citizens hardly ever traveled more than a few miles from their homes.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TRAVEL<\/h3>\nIn biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine.<\/p>\n\nTravel in Old Testament Times<\/p>\nSeveral accounts depict the people of Israel moving over restricted areas to graze their flocks. Joseph’s brothers took their flocks from the south of the land up to Shechem and then to Dothan (Gn 37:12-17), but this was a mere 60 miles (96.5 kilometers). David traveled around Palestine and even went to Moab (1 Sm 22:3). The Danites moved from their home southwest of Jerusalem to the north, just south of the Lebanon Mountains (Jgs 18).<\/p>\nExamples of travel for pasturage, migration, and protection could be multiplied. Such travelers would normally walk, though the ass was used both for riding and as a pack animal. The ox was employed for transporting heavy loads and sometimes for people (Gn 46:5). Later the camel came into general use (1 Kgs 10:2; 2 Kgs 8:9). Little is known of resting places for travelers in OT times. There are only a few references to a “lodging place” (malon<\/span>) in OT narratives (Gn 42:27; 43:21; Ex 4:24).<\/p>\nTravel in New Testament Times<\/p>\nThe Roman world knew a great deal of travel: to fulfill religious obligations at festival time, for trade, for government administration, for military purposes. Not the least among first-century travelers were the early Christian missionaries.<\/p>\nThe advent of Roman peace and authority and the construction of well-made stone roads made travel relatively safe and quick. The modes of travel improved over that known in OT times. Long distances were traveled within the Roman Empire over good roads and in comparative safety. There were some hazards, however, notably in sea travel, from wind, storms, and pirates (Acts 15:39; 18:18-22; Rom 15:24-25; 2 Cor 11:25-26). Paul’s sea journey to Rome, for example, was perilous (Acts 27:1–28:14).<\/p>\nThe NT mentions a number of journeys on foot. Mary journeyed from Galilee to Judea to visit Elizabeth (Lk 1:39-40, 56). The baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the census (2:1-7); Jesus was brought to Jerusalem to comply with the Jewish purification law (v 22). Thus three trips were made from Nazareth to Jerusalem, a distance of about 70 miles (112.6 kilometers), from the time of Jesus’ conception to Mary’s purification. The annual Passover visit was made by Joseph and Mary (vv 41-51). Other journeys are mentioned (Jn 2:13; 5:1; 7:1-10; 12:1). Jesus himself walked to Jericho from Galilee (Mk 1:1-11) and also to the region of Tyre and Sidon (7:24). He was in Samaria more than once (Lk 17:11; Jn 4:4). His last journey to Jerusalem was via Jericho and up through the hills to Jerusalem (Mk 10:1, 46; 11:1). His last journey after the resurrection was to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35).<\/p>\nPaul traveled by sea on each of his missionary journeys (Acts 13:1-14; 15:41–18:22; 18:23–21:17), generally accompanied by friends. He also made many journeys on foot in Palestine, Asia Minor, and the Greek peninsula. But not all travel was on foot in NT times. The ass, used for carrying loads, often carried people. Jesus once rode from Bethphage to Jerusalem, a short but highly symbolic journey (Mt 21:2-7; Mk 11:1-11; Jn 12:12-15). When Joseph traveled with his pregnant wife, Mary, to Bethlehem for the census at the time of Jesus’ birth, Mary probably rode on an ass. The Ethiopian eunuch was riding in a chariot after worshiping at Jerusalem and was joined by Philip traveling on foot (Acts 8:26-38). Roman soldiers both marched and made wide use of horses. When Paul was brought to Caesarea from Jerusalem, mounts were prepared for him (23:23-24).<\/p>\nRoads and Sea Lanes<\/p>\nThe roads of biblical times figured prominently in the geography, topography, and history of Palestine—a land that served as a bridge between Egypt and centers of civilization and trade in the Middle East. Many of the roads were strategically important, both commercially and militarily. Some roads gained significance as pilgrim routes to facilitate travel to religious centers like Jerusalem. Roads in biblical times were of three main types: long-distance international roads, medium-distance intraregional roads, and a variety of roads inside each region or state.<\/p>\n<h5>Great International Roads<\/h5>\nThese linked the Mediterranean coast to the northern Tigris Valley and southern Mesopotamia. Some linked Mesopotamia to Asia Minor, while others led south to Egypt, either along the coast or east of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea and across the Sinai Peninsula. There were trade routes between Anatolia and Assyria early in the second millennium BC<\/span>. Apparently the military campaign referred to in Genesis 14 aimed to secure the great trade route, the King’s Highway, from northern Mesopotamia to Egypt. Military invaders and travelers from Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia would head across the hinterlands of Syria toward the coast before turning south into Palestine and Egypt. The advent of European powers, Greece and Rome, into the Middle East opened up another vast network of international roads for the peoples of the East. Until Roman times, these roads were not surfaced with stone but were cleared pathways. They were very rough, ungraded, and in wet weather, impassable in many places. But they were evidently well defined by “waymarks” and “guideposts” (Jer 31:21). With the coming of the Romans, important roads were built with deep foundations and with large blocks of flat stone at the surface. The remains of these roads are still seen in many places in the Middle East and in Europe. Distance markers or milestones were regularly placed along the roads.<\/p>\n<h5>International North-South Roads in Palestine<\/h5>\nThe roads that linked countries to the north with Egypt passed through Palestine, a natural land bridge. There were three major roads. The coastal road began in Damascus and passed via Hazor across the plain of Esdraelon, through the Megiddo Pass, down the coast past Gaza and into Egypt. This was probably “the way of the sea” (Is 9:1). The Sinai road led from Egypt into the southern Negev and then to Kadesh-barnea, Beersheba, Hebron, Jerusalem, Shechem, Acco, Tyre, and Sidon. The Red Sea road entered the Palestine area from the Gulf of Aqaba, where the ancient port of Elath and Solomon’s port of Ezion-geber stood (Nm 33:35; 2 Chr 8:17). From there it led through the mountainous areas of Transjordan, crossing the deep wadis and then north through the Hauran region to Damascus. This was the road taken by caravans from southern Arabia to Damascus, the ancient King’s Highway (Nm 20:17; 21:22).<\/p>\nThere were other north-south roads of lesser importance. One coastal road led from Joppa via Caesarea and Dor to Acco, where it linked with the Sinai road. Evidently it was not very significant until Roman times, when the port of Caesarea was built. The marshes in the plain of Sharon posed many problems. The plain of Esdraelon was also marshy and interrupted the roads north in bad seasons. A raised road across the swampy sections was eventually constructed. Another road led north from Hazor, branching off the main trunk road to Damascus. The Jordan Valley road skirted the southwestern part of Galilee and led down the Jordan Valley to Jericho.<\/p>\n<h5>East-West Roads<\/h5>\nSeveral important roads ran east-west, intersecting the larger roads leading north. One such road led from Gaza to Beersheba and then down the Arabah, with an offshoot to Petra. Another led from Ashkelon, via Gath, to Hebron and on to En-gedi on the Dead Sea. Another road led from Joppa east up the valley of Aijalon (Jos 10:6-14) to Bethel and on to Jericho. One well-used road led from Joppa to Shechem, across the Jordan at Adam (3:16) and into Gilead in Transjordan. Other roads led from Acco eastward to Galilee and also up the coast to Tyre and Sidon. There were, indeed, numerous east-west roads that provided contact between various parts of Palestine. In Roman times, when the speedy movement of armies was essential, some of the old roads were greatly improved and new ones built.<\/p>\n<h5>Sea Lanes<\/h5>\nThe people of Israel, unlike the Phoenicians, seldom used the sea lanes. When Solomon planned to send ships down the Red Sea to Ophir (1 Kgs 9:26-28), he used Phoenician seamen. Jehoshaphat planned a similar expedition, but his ships were wrecked (22:48-49). Coastal traffic in OT times was in the hands of Philistines and Phoenicians. There were several ports along the Mediterranean Sea coast, such as Gaza, Joppa, Dor, and Acco, but none was very good. There were also sea lanes linking the Mediterranean coast with Egypt and distant Tarshish (probably Spain). The other coastal water was the Gulf of Aqaba with its two ports—Ezion-geber for Transjordan, and Elath for west of the Jordan. Solomon’s fleet used Ezion-geber as its home port.<\/p>\n\nIn NT times things changed considerably. The Middle East produced commodities used by peoples farther west, especially the Romans. Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria handled both cargo and travelers. Smaller ports like those in Palestine and many others around the coast of Asia Minor provided a haven for ships. One ingenious scheme to avoid a 200-mile (321.8-kilometer) journey around the Greek peninsula was to drag small boats across the five-mile- (8-kilometer-) wide isthmus at Corinth. Even the largest ship in NT times was in danger from wind and storm at sea (Acts 27), so sea travel was undertaken preferably when the risk of storms was minimal, roughly from November to March. There was a lot of sea traffic in the Mediterranean Sea at appropriate seasons, largely for trade. Grain ships crossed regularly from Rome to Egypt and to the east.<\/p>\nShips were driven by sail power supplemented as necessary by oars operated by slaves. Some indication of the size of ships comes from the discovery of ancient wrecks and from Latin and Greek literature. An old dry dock 130 feet (39.6 meters) long found near Athens was once used for Greek war vessels, which were smaller than the cargo vessels. The Roman writer Lucian refers to an Alexandrian grain ship 180 feet (54.9 meters) long, suggesting a capacity of about 1,200 tons (1,088.6 metric tons). Paul’s ship carried 276 persons (Acts 27:37). Modern underwater archaeology is providing valuable information about these ancient ships.<\/p>\n<h5>Reasons for Travel<\/h5>\nThe most important reason for travel in NT times was for trade and commerce, which involved far more than merely transporting goods. There were agents, supervisors, insurers of cargo, bankers, and a whole range of people involved in the acquisition and safe delivery of the cargo.<\/p>\nMilitary travel was considerable. A wide variety of tasks had to be undertaken in the way of reconnaissance, procuring of supplies, forward arrangements for the bivouacking of troops, and the transport of both troops and equipment.<\/p>\nSome travelers were tradespeople changing their place of employment, like Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3). Aquila had traveled from Pontus on the Black Sea to Rome and then, in a time of persecution, he had fled to Corinth with his wife. Many others traveled for similar reasons.<\/p>\nPeople on religious pilgrimage traveled by land or sea. Jews from many lands journeyed to Jerusalem for the annual Passover festivities (cf. Acts 2:5-11). Non-Jews went to religious centers at Ephesus, Athens, and Eleusis, where there were important temples. Many minor temples also attracted pilgrims. The construction of new temples and a variety of government administration buildings brought craftsmen from afar. Often the materials used in construction had to be transported to the site. Some people made trips for health reasons to temples famed for healing miracles or to enjoy the benefits of hot springs like those at Capernaum or Tiberias. Athletes traveled to centers for important contests like the Olympic games, and crowds of people flocked to witness the spectacle. Some travelers were students or teachers going to great centers of learning—the universities of those times. Yet others traveled as official emissaries bearing important government and commercial documents. Despite all this activity, vast numbers of ordinary citizens hardly ever traveled more than a few miles from their homes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"TRAVEL In biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine. Travel in Old Testament Times Several accounts depict the peop...","summary_en":"TRAVEL In biblical times travelers found roads bad and often impassable. Sea voyages were made in comparatively small ships, usually by military and commercial personnel, and hardly ever for simple tourist traffic. With little reason to travel, ordinary citizens tended to remain in fairly limited areas. From time to time, there were group migrations, and sometimes people traveled for religious festivals or fled from war or famine. Travel in Old Testament Times Several accounts depict the peop...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46352,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:3","content_ro":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","content_en":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","summary_en":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73978,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:3","content_ro":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","content_en":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","summary_en":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101604,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:3","content_ro":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","content_en":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","summary_en":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129230,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:3","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:3","content_ro":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","content_en":"22:3-4<\/strong> Mizpeh in Moab<\/em> lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab:<\/em> Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","summary_en":"22:3-4 Mizpeh in Moab lay east of the Dead Sea and the Jordan River—not an easy trip from Adullam, especially if the 400 men (22:2) accompanied David. • David’s parents stayed in Moab: Jesse’s grandmother was Ruth, a Moabite (Ruth 4:13-22).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":13025,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gad (Person)","title_en":"Gad (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>GAD (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. One of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:26; 1 Chr 2:2). He was the first of the two sons born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s maid. Delighted with giving Jacob another son, Leah named the boy Gad, meaning “good fortune” (Gn 30:11). Later, Gad moved his family with Jacob to Egypt (Ex 1:4). When Jacob blessed his sons, he predicted that Gad would constantly be troubled by foreign invaders but would successfully withstand them and put them to flight (see Gn 49:19 and discussion below under Gad, Tribe of). Gad became the father of seven sons (Gn 46:16) and the founder of the Gadites (Dt 3:12, 16), one of the 12 tribes of Israel (Nm 2:14).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Gad, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Prophet and seer during the reign of David. He counseled David to leave Mizpeh of Moab and return to the land of Judah (1 Sm 22:5). Gad communicated David’s punishment for numbering the fighting men of Israel (2 Sm 24:11-14, 18-19; 1 Chr 21:9-19), assisted David and Nathan in setting up the order of worship in the sanctuary (2 Chr 29:25) and later wrote an account of David’s life (1 Chr 29:29).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>GAD (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. One of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:26; 1 Chr 2:2). He was the first of the two sons born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s maid. Delighted with giving Jacob another son, Leah named the boy Gad, meaning “good fortune” (Gn 30:11). Later, Gad moved his family with Jacob to Egypt (Ex 1:4). When Jacob blessed his sons, he predicted that Gad would constantly be troubled by foreign invaders but would successfully withstand them and put them to flight (see Gn 49:19 and discussion below under Gad, Tribe of). Gad became the father of seven sons (Gn 46:16) and the founder of the Gadites (Dt 3:12, 16), one of the 12 tribes of Israel (Nm 2:14).<\/li>\nSee also<\/em> Gad, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Prophet and seer during the reign of David. He counseled David to leave Mizpeh of Moab and return to the land of Judah (1 Sm 22:5). Gad communicated David’s punishment for numbering the fighting men of Israel (2 Sm 24:11-14, 18-19; 1 Chr 21:9-19), assisted David and Nathan in setting up the order of worship in the sanctuary (2 Chr 29:25) and later wrote an account of David’s life (1 Chr 29:29).<\/li>","summary_ro":"GAD (Person) 1. One of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:26; 1 Chr 2:2). He was the first of the two sons born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s maid. Delighted with giving Jacob another son, Leah named the boy Gad, meaning “good fortune” (Gn 30:11). Later, Gad moved his family with Jacob to Egypt (Ex 1:4). When Jacob blessed his sons, he predicted that Gad would constantly be troubled by foreign invaders but would successfully withstand them and put them to flight (see Gn 49:19 and discussion below under...","summary_en":"GAD (Person) 1. One of the 12 sons of Jacob (Gn 35:26; 1 Chr 2:2). He was the first of the two sons born to Jacob by Zilpah, Leah’s maid. Delighted with giving Jacob another son, Leah named the boy Gad, meaning “good fortune” (Gn 30:11). Later, Gad moved his family with Jacob to Egypt (Ex 1:4). When Jacob blessed his sons, he predicted that Gad would constantly be troubled by foreign invaders but would successfully withstand them and put them to flight (see Gn 49:19 and discussion below under...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":15362,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hareth*","title_en":"Hareth*","content_ro":"<h3>HARETH*<\/h3>\nKJV spelling of Hereth in 1 Samuel 22:5. See<\/em> Hereth.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HARETH*<\/h3>\nKJV spelling of Hereth in 1 Samuel 22:5. See<\/em> Hereth.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HARETH* KJV spelling of Hereth in 1 Samuel 22:5. See Hereth.","summary_en":"HARETH* KJV spelling of Hereth in 1 Samuel 22:5. See Hereth.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16248,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hereth","title_en":"Hereth","content_ro":"<h3>HERETH<\/h3>\nSection of forested land in the territory of Judah where David and his men hid for a time as they fled from King Saul (1 Sm 22:5).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HERETH<\/h3>\nSection of forested land in the territory of Judah where David and his men hid for a time as they fled from King Saul (1 Sm 22:5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HERETH Section of forested land in the territory of Judah where David and his men hid for a time as they fled from King Saul (1 Sm 22:5).","summary_en":"HERETH Section of forested land in the territory of Judah where David and his men hid for a time as they fled from King Saul (1 Sm 22:5).","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18160,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jaar","title_en":"Jaar","content_ro":"<h3>JAAR<\/h3>\nMost common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. Here it is called the field of Jaar (or “the wood,” kjv<\/span>), perhaps a poetic abbreviation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JAAR<\/h3>\nMost common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. Here it is called the field of Jaar (or “the wood,” kjv<\/span>), perhaps a poetic abbreviation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JAAR Most common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from...","summary_en":"JAAR Most common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46353,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:5","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:5","content_ro":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","summary_en":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73979,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:5","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:5","content_ro":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","summary_en":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101605,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:5","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:5","content_ro":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","summary_en":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129231,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:5","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:5","content_ro":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","content_en":"22:5<\/strong> The prophet Gad<\/em> was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","summary_en":"22:5 The prophet Gad was David’s special adviser (2 Sam 24:11). God was no longer communicating with Saul but was guiding David.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":8711,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"David","title_en":"David","content_ro":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\nIsrael’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\nThe two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Early Years<\/p>\n• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n• David as King<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\nEarly Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\nDavid was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\nLittle is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\nDavid was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\nIn Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\nPreparation for Kingship<\/p>\nDuring his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\nAs a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\nKilling Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\nSaul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\nIn the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\nAfter Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\nConferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\nFleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\nDavid’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\nThe Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\nAt his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\nDuring the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\nOnce more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\nDavid continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\nThe Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\nDavid as King<\/p>\nDavid ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\nDavid was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\nDavid was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\nSure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\nConfusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\nA kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\nWhen the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\nIn search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\nIn the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\nWith Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\nLittle is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIt is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\nDavid’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\nA lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\nAlthough polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\nDavid’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\nHaving incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\nOn his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\nAlthough David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\nThe military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\nDavid took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\nThrough the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\nThe OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\nDavid probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\nDavid’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nDavid, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\nEzekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\nDavid is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DAVID<\/h3>\nIsrael’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history.<\/p>\nThe two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Early Years<\/p>\n• Preparation for Kingship<\/p>\n• David as King<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\nEarly Years<\/p>\n<h5>Family<\/h5>\nDavid was the youngest son in Jesse’s family, part of Judah’s tribe. The family lived in Bethlehem, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Jerusalem. His great-grandmother was Ruth, from the land of Moab (Ru 4:18-22). Genealogies in both the OT and the NT trace David’s lineage back to Judah, son of the patriarch Jacob (1 Chr 2:3-15; Mt 1:3-6; Lk 3:31-33).<\/p>\n<h5>Training and Talents<\/h5>\nLittle is known about David’s early life. As a boy, he took care of his father’s sheep, risking his life to kill attacking bears and lions. Later, David publicly acknowledged God’s help and strength in protecting the flocks under his care (1 Sm 17:34-37).<\/p>\nDavid was an accomplished musician. He had developed his ability as a harpist so well that, when a musician was needed at the royal court of King Saul, someone immediately recommended David.<\/p>\nIn Jesse’s family, David was regarded as unimportant. When the nationally known prophet Samuel visited Jesse’s home, all the older sons were on hand to meet him; David was tending the sheep. Samuel had been instructed by God to anoint a king from Jesse’s family, not knowing beforehand which son to anoint. Sensing divine restraint as seven brothers passed before him, he made further inquiry. When he learned that Jesse had one other son, David was immediately summoned. David was anointed by Samuel and endowed with the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sm 16:1-13). Whatever Jesse and his family understood by that anointing, it seems to have made no immediate change in David’s pattern of living. He continued to tend the sheep.<\/p>\nPreparation for Kingship<\/p>\nDuring his youth, David was willing to serve others, even though he had been anointed king. It was his willingness to take supplies to three of his older brothers in the army that gave him his opportunity for national fame.<\/p>\nAs a young man, David was also sensitive toward God. While greeting his brothers on the battlefield, he was disturbed by the Philistine Goliath’s defiance of God’s armies. Although rebuked by his brothers, David accepted the challenge to take on Goliath. He had a reasonable confidence that God, who had helped him encounter a lion and a bear, would aid him against a champion warrior. So, with faith in God and using his ability to sling stones, David killed Goliath (1 Sm 17:12-58).<\/p>\n<h5>National Fame<\/h5>\nKilling Goliath made David a hero to the nation of Israel. It also brought him into close relationship with the royal family of Saul. But success and national acclaim brought on the jealousy of Saul and ultimately resulted in David’s expulsion from the land of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>In the Royal Court<\/h5>\nSaul promised his oldest daughter, Merab, to David in marriage, but then Saul went back on the promise and offered David another daughter, Michal. The dowry of trophies from dead Philistines demanded by Saul was designed to bring about David’s death at Philistine hands. But again David was victorious. Women sang praises of his exploits, intensifying Saul’s jealousy and further endangering David’s life (1 Sm 18:6-30).<\/p>\nIn the meantime, David and Saul’s son Jonathan developed a deep friendship. When they made a covenant, Jonathan gave David his choicest military equipment (sword, bow, and belt). Although Saul tried to turn Jonathan against David, the friendship deepened. Because Saul was trying to kill him, David had to flee from the court and live as a fugitive.<\/p>\nAfter Jonathan had warned David of Saul’s continuing designs on his life, David went to Ramah to see the prophet Samuel. Together they went to Naioth, near Ramah. After sending several groups of men after David, Saul finally went with them himself. All his attempts to seize David were thwarted by the Spirit of God, who caused Saul and his men to prophesy all night in religious fervor (1 Sm 19).<\/p>\nConferring again with Jonathan, David realized that Saul’s jealousy had developed into hatred. Jonathan, aware that David would be the future king of Israel, requested assurance that his descendants would receive protection under David’s rule (1 Sm 20).<\/p>\n<h5>Life as a Fugitive<\/h5>\nFleeing from Saul, David stopped at Nob. By deceiving Ahimelech, who was officiating as priest there, David obtained food supplies and Goliath’s sword (kept as a trophy). An Edomite named Doeg, chief of Saul’s herdsmen, saw what happened at Nob. David continued his flight, taking refuge temporarily in Gath with King Achish (1 Sm 21), then finding shelter in the cave of Adullam, located 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem. There his relatives and about 400 fighting men joined him. He went to Mizpeh in Moab, appealing to the Moabite king for protection, especially for his parents. When the prophet Gad warned him not to stay there, David moved back to Judah to the Hereth woods (1 Sm 22:1-5).<\/p>\nDavid’s freedom of movement enraged Saul, who charged his own people with conspiracy. When Doeg reported what he had witnessed at Nob, Saul executed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, then massacred all of Nob’s inhabitants. One priest named Abiathar escaped to report Saul’s atrocities to David, who assured him of protection (1 Sm 22:6-23).<\/p>\nThe Philistines were always ready to take advantage of any weakness in Israel. David’s reprisal after a Philistine raid on Keilah, 12 miles (19.3 kilometers) southwest of Bethlehem, gave Saul an opportunity to attack David, who escaped to the wilderness of Ziph, a desert area near Hebron. David and Jonathan met for the last time in that wilderness. Pursued by Saul’s army, David fled still farther south. He was almost encircled in uninhabited country near Maon when Saul had to march his army off to respond to a Philistine attack (1 Sm 23).<\/p>\nAt his next place of refuge, En-gedi, on the western shore of the Dead Sea, David was attacked by Saul with 3,000 soldiers. David had an opportunity to kill Saul but refused to harm the “Lord’s anointed” king of Israel. Learning of David’s loyalty, Saul confessed his sin in seeking David’s life (1 Sm 24).<\/p>\nDuring the years they roamed the wilderness in the Maon\/Ziph\/En-gedi area, David’s band provided protection for Nabal, a rich man living in Maon with large flocks of sheep at Carmel. In exchange for that protection, David proposed that Nabal share some of his wealth. Nabal’s scorn angered David, but Nabal’s wife, Abigail, appealed to David not to take revenge. When Abigail told Nabal of his narrow escape, he was evidently so shocked that he had a heart seizure. He died ten days later, and Abigail later became David’s wife (1 Sm 25).<\/p>\nOnce more Saul came with an army of 3,000 men into the Ziph Desert to find David, and David again passed up an opportunity to harm the king. Finally realizing the folly of seeking David’s life, Saul abandoned pursuit (1 Sm 26).<\/p>\n<h5>Refuge in Philistia<\/h5>\nDavid continued to feel unsafe in Saul’s kingdom. Returning to Gath in Philistine country, he was welcomed by King Achish. His followers were allotted the city of Ziklag, where they lived for about 16 months, attracting new recruits from Judah and the rest of Israel (1 Sm 27; 1 Chr 12:19-22).<\/p>\nThe Philistine army, marching up to the Megiddo Valley to fight Saul’s army, was uneasy with David’s guerrillas in their rear column, so the commanders put pressure on Achish to dismiss David. When he returned to Ziklag, David found that the city had just been raided by the Amalekites. He pursued the enemy, rescued his people and goods, and divided the spoils with those who had remained behind to guard the supplies (1 Sm 29–30). Meanwhile, the Philistines routed the Israelites at Mt Gilboa, killing Jonathan and two of Saul’s other sons in a fierce battle. Saul, badly wounded, killed himself with his own sword (ch 31).<\/p>\n\nDavid as King<\/p>\nDavid ruled over Israel for about 40 years, although the accounts of his reign do not contain enough information for an exact chronology. He began his rule at Hebron and reigned over Judah’s territory for seven or eight years. With the death of Saul’s successor, Ishbosheth, David was recognized as king by all the tribes and made Jerusalem his capital. During the next decade, he unified Israel through military and economic expansion. Then came approximately 10 years of disruption in the royal family. The last years of David’s reign seem to have been devoted to plans for the Jerusalem temple, which was built in the reign of his son Solomon.<\/p>\n<h5>The Years in Hebron<\/h5>\nDavid was subjected to an unusually rugged period of training for his kingship. Serving under Saul, he gained experience in military exploits against the Philistines. Then, during his fugitive wanderings in the desert area of southern Judah, he ingratiated himself with the landholders and sheep raisers by giving them protection. Being recognized as an outlaw of Israel even enabled him to negotiate diplomatic relations with Moab and Philistia.<\/p>\nDavid was in Philistine country when news came to him that both Saul and Jonathan had been slain. In a beautiful elegy he paid tribute to his friend Jonathan as well as to King Saul (2 Sm 1).<\/p>\nSure of God’s guidance, David returned to his home, where the leaders of Judah anointed him king at Hebron. He sent a message of commendation to the men of Jabesh for providing a respectable burial for King Saul, probably also bidding for their support.<\/p>\nConfusion probably swept through Israel when Saul was killed, because the Philistines occupied much of the land. Various leaders gathered whatever fighting men they could find, as old tribal loyalties reasserted themselves. David had most of Judah’s tribe firmly behind him.<\/p>\nA kind of civil war broke out between the followers of David and those of Saul, with David gaining the allegiance of more and more people. Saul’s general, Abner, eventually negotiated peace with David, who requested the restoration of Michal as his wife, indicating that he held no animosity toward Saul’s dynasty. With the consent of Saul’s son Ishbosheth, whom Abner had enthroned as king, Abner went to Hebron and pledged Israel’s support for David. But Abner was killed by Joab, one of David’s captains, in a family vendetta, and soon afterward Ishbosheth was assassinated. David publicly mourned Abner’s death and had Ishbosheth’s two murderers executed. Thus, when Saul’s dynasty ended, David was seen by the people not so much as a challenger but as a logical successor. Hence, he was recognized as king by all Israel (2 Sm 2–4).<\/p>\n<h5>Consolidation in Jerusalem<\/h5>\nWhen the Israelites turned to David as king, the Philistines became alarmed and attacked (2 Sm 5; 1 Chr 14:8-17). David was strong enough to defeat them and thus unify the people of Israel.<\/p>\nIn search of a more central location for his capital, David turned toward the city of Jerusalem, a Jebusite stronghold. Joab responded to his challenge to conquer the city and was rewarded by being made general of David’s army. Jerusalem became known as the “city of David” (1 Chr 11:4-9).<\/p>\nIn the same way that he had organized his earliest followers into an effective guerrilla band (1 Chr 11:1–12:22) at Hebron, David began organizing the whole nation (12:23-40). Once established in Jerusalem, he quickly gained recognition from the Phoenicians, contracting for their artisans to build him a magnificent palace in the new capital (14:1-2). He also made sure that Jerusalem would become Israel’s religious center (2 Sm 6; 1 Chr 13–16). His abortive attempt to move the ark of the covenant by oxcart (cf. Nm 4) reminded the powerful king that he still had to do things God’s way to be successful.<\/p>\nWith Jerusalem well established as the nation’s capital, David intended to build God a temple. He shared his plan with the prophet Nathan, whose immediate response was positive. That night, however, God sent a message via Nathan that David should not build the temple. David’s throne would be established eternally, the prophet said, and unlike Saul, King David would have a son to succeed him and perpetuate the kingdom; that son would build the temple (2 Sm 7; 1 Chr 17).<\/p>\n<h5>Prosperity and Supremacy<\/h5>\nLittle is recorded about the expansion of David’s rule from the tribal area of Judah to a vast empire stretching from the Nile River of Egypt to regions of the Tigris-Euphrates valley. Nothing in secular history negates the biblical perspective that David had the most powerful kingdom in the heart of that “Fertile Crescent” about 1000 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\nIt is likely that skirmishes with the Philistines to the west were frequent until they finally became subservient to David and paid him tribute. In Saul’s day the Philistines had enjoyed a monopoly on the use of iron (1 Sm 13:19-21). The fact that David freely used iron near the end of his reign (1 Chr 22:3) hints at profound economic changes in Israel.<\/p>\nDavid’s kingdom expanded southward as he built military garrisons in Edomite territory. Beyond Edom, he controlled the Moabites and Amalekites, who paid him tribute in silver and gold. To the northeast, Israelite domination was extended over the Ammonites and the Arameans, whose capital was Damascus. David’s treatment of both friends and enemies seemed to contribute to the strength of his kingdom (2 Sm 8–10). Although he was a brilliant military strategist who used all the means and resources available to bring Israel success, David was humble enough to glorify God (2 Sm 22; see Ps 18).<\/p>\n<h5>Sin in the Royal Family<\/h5>\nA lengthy section of the book of 2 Samuel (chs 11–20) gives a remarkably frank account of sin, crime, and rebellion in David’s family. The king’s own imperfections are clearly portrayed; the king of Israel himself could not escape God’s judgement when he did wrong.<\/p>\nAlthough polygamy was then a Near Eastern status symbol, it was forbidden for a king of Israel (Dt 17:17). David practiced polygamy, however; some of his marriages undoubtedly had political implications (such as his marriages to Saul’s daughter Michal and to princess Maacah of Geshur). Flagrant sins of incest, murder, and rebellion in his family brought David much suffering and almost cost him the throne.<\/p>\nDavid’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba, committed at the height of his military success and territorial expansion, led him further into evil: he planned a strategy to have Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, killed on the front line of battle. David seems to have excluded God from consideration in that segment of his personal life. Yet when the prophet Nathan confronted the king with his sins, David acknowledged his guilt. He confessed his sin and pleaded with God for forgiveness (as in Pss 32 and 51). God forgave him, but for nearly ten years David endured the consequences of his lack of self-restraint and his failure to exercise discipline in his family. Although unsurpassed in military and diplomatic strategy, David lacked strength of character in his domestic affairs. Evil fermented in his own house; the father’s self-indulgence was soon reflected in Amnon’s crime of incest, followed by Absalom’s murder of his brother.<\/p>\nHaving incurred his father’s disfavor, Absalom took refuge in Geshur with his mother’s people for three years. Joab, David’s general, was eventually able to reconcile David with his alienated son. Absalom, however, having taken advantage of his position in the royal family to gain a following, went to Hebron, staged a surprise rebellion, and proclaimed himself king throughout Israel. His strong following posed such a threat that David fled from Jerusalem. David, still a master strategist, gained time through a ruse to organize his forces and put down his son’s rebellion. Absalom was killed while trying to flee; his death plunged David into grief.<\/p>\nOn his return to Jerusalem, David had to work at undoing the damage caused by Absalom’s revolt. His own tribe of Judah, for example, had supported Absalom. Another rebellion, fomented by Sheba of Benjamin’s tribe, had to be suppressed by Joab before the nation could settle down.<\/p>\n<h5>David’s Last Years<\/h5>\nAlthough David was not permitted to build the temple in Jerusalem, he made extensive preparations for that project during the last years of his reign. He stockpiled materials and organized the kingdom for efficient use of domestic and foreign labor. He also outlined details for religious worship in the new structure (1 Chr 21–29).<\/p>\nThe military and civic organization developed by David was probably patterned after Egyptian practice. The army, rigidly controlled by officers of proven loyalty to the king, included mercenaries. The king also appointed trusted supervisors over farms, livestock, and orchards in various parts of his empire (1 Chr 27:25-31).<\/p>\nDavid took, or at least began, a census of Israel (2 Sm 24; 1 Chr 21). The incompleteness of the accounts leaves unanswered such questions as the reason for God’s punishment. The king overruled Joab’s objection and insisted that the census be taken. Since David later seemed keenly aware that he had sinned in taking the census, it may be that he was motivated by pride to ascertain his exact military strength (approx. 1.5 million men). God may also have been judging the people for their support of the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba.<\/p>\nThrough the prophet Gad, David was given a choice of punishments for his sin. He chose a three-day pestilence. As David and the elders repented, they saw an angel on the threshing floor of the Jebusite Ornan (Araunah). David offered sacrifice there and prayed for his people. Later he purchased the threshing floor, located just outside the city of Jerusalem, concluding that it should be the site for the temple to be built by his son Solomon (1 Chr 21:28–22:1).<\/p>\nDavid’s Lasting Influence<\/p>\n<h5>The Writer of Psalms<\/h5>\nThe OT book of Psalms became one of the most popular books in ancient Israel, and has remained so among countless millions of people throughout the centuries. These words of praise prepared by David were intended for use in the temple worship (2 Chr 29:30). The 73 psalms ascribed to David generally grew out of his own relationship to God and to other persons.<\/p>\n\nDavid probably compiled Book I of the book of Psalms (1–41) and Book IV (90–106), since most of those psalms were written by David himself. Other psalms of his (Pss 51–71) are in Book II (42–72), which was probably compiled by Solomon. As those psalms were used for worship in later generations, various people added others until the time of Ezra.<\/p>\nDavid’s psalms provided much of the poetry that was set to music for Israel’s worship. His organization of the priests and Levites and his provision of instruments for worship (2 Chr 7:6; 8:14) set the pattern for generations to come in the religious life of Israel.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the Writings of the Prophets<\/h5>\nDavid, recognized as the greatest Israelite king, is often mentioned as a standard of comparison in the writings of the OT prophets. Isaiah (as in Is 7:2, 13; 22:22) and Jeremiah often referred to their contemporary kings as belonging to the “house” or “throne” of David. Contrasting David with some of his descendants who did not honor God, both Isaiah and Jeremiah predicted a messianic ruler who would establish justice and righteousness on the throne of David forever (Is 9:7; Jer 33:15). When Isaiah described the coming ruler, he identified him as being from the lineage of Jesse, David’s father (Is 11:1-10). Predicting a period of universal peace, Isaiah saw the capital in “Zion,” identified with the city of David (2:1-4).<\/p>\nEzekiel promised the restoration of David as king in an eschatological and messianic sense (Ez 37:24-25), and of “my servant David” as Israel’s shepherd (34:23). Hosea likewise identified the future ruler as King David (Hos 3:5). Amos assured the people that God would restore the “tabernacle” of David (Am 9:11) so that they could again dwell in safety. Zechariah referred five times to the “house of David” (in Zec 12–13, rsv<\/span>), encouraging the hope of a restoration of David’s glorious dynasty. The concept of the eternal throne promised to David during his reign was delineated in the message of the prophets even while they were announcing judgments to come on the rulers and people of their time.<\/p>\n<h5>David in the New Testament<\/h5>\nDavid is frequently mentioned by the Gospel writers, who established Jesus’ identity as the “son of David.” The covenant God made with David was that an eternal king would come from David’s family (Mt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; Mk 10:48; 12:35; Lk 18:38-39; 20:41). According to Mark 11:10 and John 7:42, the Jews of Jesus’ day expected the Messiah (Christ) to be a descendant of David. While stating that Jesus came from the lineage of David, the Gospels also clearly teach that Jesus was the Son of God (Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44).<\/p>\nIn the book of Acts, David is recognized as the recipient of God’s promises that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. David is also seen as a prophet whom the Holy Spirit inspired to write the psalms (Acts 1:16; 2:22-36; 4:25; 13:26-39).<\/p>\nIn the book of Revelation, Jesus is designated as having the “key of David” (Rv 3:7), and as being “the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5). Jesus is quoted as asserting that “I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star” (22:16).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Christology; Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Israel, History of; King; Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven; Messiah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","summary_en":"DAVID Israel’s most important king. David’s kingdom represented the epitome of Israel’s power and influence during the nation’s OT history. The two books in the OT devoted to David’s reign are 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. His earlier years are recorded in 1 Samuel, beginning at chapter 16. Almost half of the biblical psalms are ascribed to David. His importance extends into the NT, where he is identified as an ancestor of Jesus Christ and forerunner of the messianic king. Preview • Early Years ...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13766,"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, 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>\nGibeah 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>\nThe 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 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 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 (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, rsv<\/span>; kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; 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, 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>\nGibeah 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>\nThe 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 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 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 (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, rsv<\/span>; kjv<\/span> “hill of God”; 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},{"id":27642,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nob","title_en":"Nob","content_ro":"<h3>NOB<\/h3>\nCity located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there.<\/p>\nThe episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cites David’s hunger as a just reason for breaking the ritual laws governing Sabbath observance (Mk 2:23-28). David, fleeing from Saul and needing food, went into the sanctuary at Nob and took the loaves laid out each Sabbath as an offering to the Lord.<\/p>\nAhimelech, a descendant of Eli and leader of the priests of Nob, gave the showbread to David, along with the sword with which Goliath had been slain. This incensed Saul, who ordered the murder of Ahimelech and the massacre of all the priests and citizens of Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23), an act that sealed the fate of the king. Abiathar, a priest who evaded the massacre, played a prominent role in the reign of David until Solomon eventually removed him from his position (1 Kgs 2:26-27). The phrase “where God was worshiped” may refer to the sanctuary at Nob (2 Sm 15:32).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NOB<\/h3>\nCity located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there.<\/p>\nThe episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cites David’s hunger as a just reason for breaking the ritual laws governing Sabbath observance (Mk 2:23-28). David, fleeing from Saul and needing food, went into the sanctuary at Nob and took the loaves laid out each Sabbath as an offering to the Lord.<\/p>\nAhimelech, a descendant of Eli and leader of the priests of Nob, gave the showbread to David, along with the sword with which Goliath had been slain. This incensed Saul, who ordered the murder of Ahimelech and the massacre of all the priests and citizens of Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23), an act that sealed the fate of the king. Abiathar, a priest who evaded the massacre, played a prominent role in the reign of David until Solomon eventually removed him from his position (1 Kgs 2:26-27). The phrase “where God was worshiped” may refer to the sanctuary at Nob (2 Sm 15:32).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NOB City located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there. The episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cit...","summary_en":"NOB City located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there. The episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cit...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30739,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plants","title_en":"Plants","content_ro":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\nIdentifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Acacia<\/p>\n• Acanthus<\/p>\n• Algum<\/p>\n• Almond<\/p>\n• Almug<\/p>\n• Aloe<\/p>\n• Apple<\/p>\n• Apricot<\/p>\n• Ash<\/p>\n• Aspen<\/p>\n• Balm<\/p>\n• Barley<\/p>\n• Bdellium<\/p>\n• Bean<\/p>\n• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n• Box Tree<\/p>\n• Bramble<\/p>\n• Broom<\/p>\n• Buckthorn<\/p>\n• Bush<\/p>\n• Buttercup<\/p>\n• Calamus<\/p>\n• Cane<\/p>\n• Caper Plant<\/p>\n• Carob Tree<\/p>\n• Cassia<\/p>\n• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n• Cedar<\/p>\n• Chicory<\/p>\n• Cinnamon<\/p>\n• Citron Tree<\/p>\n• Coriander<\/p>\n• Cotton<\/p>\n• Cucumber<\/p>\n• Cummin<\/p>\n• Cypress<\/p>\n• Dandelion<\/p>\n• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n• Dill<\/p>\n• Ebony<\/p>\n• Endive<\/p>\n• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n• Fir Tree<\/p>\n• Flax<\/p>\n• Frankincense<\/p>\n• Galbanum<\/p>\n• Garlic<\/p>\n• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n• Hedge<\/p>\n• Henna<\/p>\n• Hyacinth<\/p>\n• Hyssop<\/p>\n• Juniper<\/p>\n• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n• Leek<\/p>\n• Lentil<\/p>\n• Lettuce<\/p>\n• Lily<\/p>\n• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n• Mallow<\/p>\n• Mandrake<\/p>\n• Melon<\/p>\n• Millet<\/p>\n• Mint<\/p>\n• Mulberry<\/p>\n• Mustard<\/p>\n• Myrrh<\/p>\n• Myrtle<\/p>\n• Narcissus<\/p>\n• Nard<\/p>\n• Nettle<\/p>\n• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n• Oak<\/p>\n• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n• Oleander<\/p>\n• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n• Onion<\/p>\n• Palm<\/p>\n• Papyrus<\/p>\n• Pine Tree<\/p>\n• Pistachio<\/p>\n• Plane Tree<\/p>\n• Pomegranate<\/p>\n• Poplar<\/p>\n• Quince<\/p>\n• Reed<\/p>\n• Rue<\/p>\n• Rush<\/p>\n• Saffron<\/p>\n• Sage<\/p>\n• Spelt<\/p>\n• Storax Tree<\/p>\n• Sycamore<\/p>\n• Tamarisk<\/p>\n• Terebinth<\/p>\n• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n• Tulip<\/p>\n• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n• Vegetable<\/p>\n• Vine<\/p>\n• Walnut<\/p>\n• Water Lily<\/p>\n• Wheat<\/p>\n• Wormwood<\/p>\nAcacia (Acacia tortilis<\/em> and A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\nAcanthus (Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\nAlgum (Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\nThe timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\nAlmond (Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\nAlmug (Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\nAloe (Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\nThe aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe (Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\nApple (Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple (Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\nApricot (Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identification of the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\nAsh (Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi (Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\nThe manna tamarisk (Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nThe flowering or manna ash (Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\nAspen (Populus euphratica<\/em> or P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of the genus Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\nBalm (Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\nAn oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree (Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\nThe lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\nReferences to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead (Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\nThis tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\nBarley (Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\nA cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley (Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley (H. hex<\/em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley (H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\nBdellium (Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\nBean (Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\nBitter Herbs (Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive (Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory (Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce (Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\nBoxthorn, European (Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nBox Tree (Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nThe long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\nBramble (Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian bramble (Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble (R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\nBroom (Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\nA shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom (Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\nThe “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant (Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\nBuckthorn (Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nBush (Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\nLow, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower (Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia (Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\nButtercup (Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\nCalamus (Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\nA plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag (Acorus<\/em> calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass (Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\nCane (Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane (S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\nCaper Plant (Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\nSpiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\nCarob Tree (Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\nEvergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\nCassia (Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\nCastor Oil Plant (Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nLarge plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\nCedar (Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\nChicory (Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nCinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\nTwo varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\nThe Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\nCitron Tree (Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\nCoriander (Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\nCotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\nCucumber (Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\nCummin (Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\nCypress (Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\nDandelion (Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nDarnel Grass (Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is generally agreed that the “tares” of the kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\nDill (Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nDill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\nEbony (Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree (Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\nEzekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\nEndive (Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nFig, Fig Tree (Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\nThe fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\nThe fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\nWhenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\nFir Tree (Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\nThis a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\nFlax (Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\nAt least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\nThe common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\nFrankincense (Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\nFrankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\nGalbanum (Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\nGalbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\nGarlic (Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nGourd, Wild (Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\nThere has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\nHedge (Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nRow of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn (Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\nHenna (Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\nTree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\nHenna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\nHyacinth (Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\nHyssop (Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\nWoody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested Hyssopus offici<\/em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\nThe “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram (Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\nThe hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\nJuniper (Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\nVariety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\nLaurel or Sweet Bay (Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\nEven though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\nLeek (Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nLentil (Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\nLettuce (Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nLily (Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of the genus Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\nAn alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\nAnother proposed plant is Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\nThe references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\nLotus Bush (Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (kjv<\/span>; cf. nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\nOther commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\nMallow (Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\nMandrake (Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\nThe love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\nMelon (Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon (Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\nMillet (Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nA grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\nMint (Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint (Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\nMulberry (Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\nMustard (Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\nThe mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\nWhile the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\nMyrrh (Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\nMyrtle (Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\nIn the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\nNarcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\nWidely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\nNard (Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\nThe nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\nNettle (Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\nPlant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, U. urens;<\/em> and U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\nNutmeg Flower (Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\nOak (Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\nAt least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak (Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\nA second oak is the valonia oak (Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak (Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\nThe word translated “plain” (kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\nThe many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\nOil Tree, Oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nSmall Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\nOleander (Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\nAny poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\nOlive, Olive Tree (Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\nOld world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\nOnion (Allium)<\/em><\/p>\nThe onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\nClosely related to the onion is the garlic, A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\nStill another one of the onions is the leek, A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\nPalm (Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\nPapyrus (Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\nIn addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\nThe pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\nPine Tree (Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine (Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\nAnother of the pines is the Aleppo pine, Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\nPistachio (Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\nThe nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\nPlane Tree (Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\nThe plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\nPomegranate (Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\nThe pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\nPoplar (Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\nFast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\nThe white poplar (Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\nQuince (Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\nReed (Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\nNumerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush (Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush (J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\nAt least 15 kinds of bulrushes (Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush (Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush (S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush (S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\nThe reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed (Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\nRue (Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue (Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\nRue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\nRush (Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\nGeneric term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola (Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\nSaffron (Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nSaffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus (C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\nAnother, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant (Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\nSage (Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\nThis plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\nSpelt (Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\nHardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\nStorax Tree (Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\nSycamore-fig (Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\nTamarisk (Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\nTerebinth (Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\nThistle, Thorn (Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\nThe general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade (Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\nThe thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury (C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury (C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle (Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\nThe references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\nThe cockle of Job 31:40 (nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\nMany commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn (Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\nThe thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn (Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\nTulip (Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip (T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\nTumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\nVegetable<\/p>\nScriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\nVine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\nAny plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\nThe grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\nThe wild grape (Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\nWalnut (Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\nWater Lily (Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily (Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\nThe common European white water lily (N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\nAnother water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\nWheat (Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn (T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar (T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer (T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat (T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\nCorn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\nThe mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\nWormwood (Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\nWormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\nAbsinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\nIdentifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Acacia<\/p>\n• Acanthus<\/p>\n• Algum<\/p>\n• Almond<\/p>\n• Almug<\/p>\n• Aloe<\/p>\n• Apple<\/p>\n• Apricot<\/p>\n• Ash<\/p>\n• Aspen<\/p>\n• Balm<\/p>\n• Barley<\/p>\n• Bdellium<\/p>\n• Bean<\/p>\n• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n• Box Tree<\/p>\n• Bramble<\/p>\n• Broom<\/p>\n• Buckthorn<\/p>\n• Bush<\/p>\n• Buttercup<\/p>\n• Calamus<\/p>\n• Cane<\/p>\n• Caper Plant<\/p>\n• Carob Tree<\/p>\n• Cassia<\/p>\n• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n• Cedar<\/p>\n• Chicory<\/p>\n• Cinnamon<\/p>\n• Citron Tree<\/p>\n• Coriander<\/p>\n• Cotton<\/p>\n• Cucumber<\/p>\n• Cummin<\/p>\n• Cypress<\/p>\n• Dandelion<\/p>\n• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n• Dill<\/p>\n• Ebony<\/p>\n• Endive<\/p>\n• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n• Fir Tree<\/p>\n• Flax<\/p>\n• Frankincense<\/p>\n• Galbanum<\/p>\n• Garlic<\/p>\n• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n• Hedge<\/p>\n• Henna<\/p>\n• Hyacinth<\/p>\n• Hyssop<\/p>\n• Juniper<\/p>\n• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n• Leek<\/p>\n• Lentil<\/p>\n• Lettuce<\/p>\n• Lily<\/p>\n• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n• Mallow<\/p>\n• Mandrake<\/p>\n• Melon<\/p>\n• Millet<\/p>\n• Mint<\/p>\n• Mulberry<\/p>\n• Mustard<\/p>\n• Myrrh<\/p>\n• Myrtle<\/p>\n• Narcissus<\/p>\n• Nard<\/p>\n• Nettle<\/p>\n• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n• Oak<\/p>\n• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n• Oleander<\/p>\n• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n• Onion<\/p>\n• Palm<\/p>\n• Papyrus<\/p>\n• Pine Tree<\/p>\n• Pistachio<\/p>\n• Plane Tree<\/p>\n• Pomegranate<\/p>\n• Poplar<\/p>\n• Quince<\/p>\n• Reed<\/p>\n• Rue<\/p>\n• Rush<\/p>\n• Saffron<\/p>\n• Sage<\/p>\n• Spelt<\/p>\n• Storax Tree<\/p>\n• Sycamore<\/p>\n• Tamarisk<\/p>\n• Terebinth<\/p>\n• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n• Tulip<\/p>\n• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n• Vegetable<\/p>\n• Vine<\/p>\n• Walnut<\/p>\n• Water Lily<\/p>\n• Wheat<\/p>\n• Wormwood<\/p>\nAcacia (Acacia tortilis<\/em> and A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\nAcanthus (Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\nAlgum (Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\nThe timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\nAlmond (Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\nAlmug (Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\nAloe (Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\nThe aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe (Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\nApple (Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple (Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\nApricot (Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\nThe identification of the Hebrew word tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\nAsh (Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi (Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\nThe manna tamarisk (Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nThe flowering or manna ash (Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\nAspen (Populus euphratica<\/em> or P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of the genus Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\nBalm (Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\nAn oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree (Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\nThe lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\nReferences to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead (Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\nThis tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\nBarley (Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\nA cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley (Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley (H. hex<\/em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley (H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\nBdellium (Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\nBean (Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\nBitter Herbs (Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive (Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory (Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce (Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\nBoxthorn, European (Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\nBox Tree (Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nThe long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\nBramble (Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian bramble (Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble (R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\nBroom (Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\nA shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom (Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\nThe “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant (Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\nBuckthorn (Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\nBush (Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\nLow, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower (Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia (Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\nButtercup (Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\nCalamus (Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\nA plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag (Acorus<\/em> calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass (Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\nCane (Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane (S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\nCaper Plant (Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\nSpiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\nCarob Tree (Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\nEvergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\nCassia (Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\nCastor Oil Plant (Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nLarge plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\nCedar (Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\nChicory (Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nCinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\nTwo varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\nThe Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\nCitron Tree (Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\nCoriander (Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\nCotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton (Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\nCucumber (Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\nCummin (Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\nCypress (Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\nDandelion (Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nDarnel Grass (Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\nIt is generally agreed that the “tares” of the kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\nDill (Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nDill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\nEbony (Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\nChiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree (Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\nEzekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\nEndive (Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nFig, Fig Tree (Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\nThe fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\nThe fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\nWhenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\nFir Tree (Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\nThis a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\nFlax (Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\nAt least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\nThe common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\nFrankincense (Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\nFrankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\nGalbanum (Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\nGalbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\nGarlic (Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nGourd, Wild (Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\nThere has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\nHedge (Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\nRow of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam (Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn (Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\nHenna (Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\nTree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\nHenna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\nHyacinth (Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\nHyssop (Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\nWoody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested Hyssopus offici<\/em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\nThe “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram (Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\nThe hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\nJuniper (Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\nVariety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\nLaurel or Sweet Bay (Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\nEven though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\nLeek (Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\nLentil (Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\nThe lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\nLettuce (Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\nLily (Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of the genus Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\nAn alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\nAnother proposed plant is Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\nThe references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\nLotus Bush (Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (kjv<\/span>; cf. nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\nOther commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\nMallow (Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\nMandrake (Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\nThe love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\nMelon (Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon (Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\nMillet (Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\nA grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\nMint (Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint (Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\nMulberry (Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\nAny tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\nMustard (Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\nThe mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\nWhile the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\nMyrrh (Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\nShrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\nMyrtle (Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\nThe myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\nIn the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\nNarcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\nWidely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus (Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\nNard (Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\nThe nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\nNettle (Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\nPlant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, U. urens;<\/em> and U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\nNutmeg Flower (Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\nThe “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\nOak (Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\nAt least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak (Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\nA second oak is the valonia oak (Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak (Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\nThe word translated “plain” (kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\nThe many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\nOil Tree, Oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\nSmall Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\nOleander (Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\nAny poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\nOlive, Olive Tree (Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\nOld world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\nOnion (Allium)<\/em><\/p>\nThe onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\nClosely related to the onion is the garlic, A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\nStill another one of the onions is the leek, A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\nPalm (Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\nPapyrus (Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\nIn addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\nThe pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\nPine Tree (Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine (Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\nAnother of the pines is the Aleppo pine, Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\nPistachio (Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\nThe nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\nPlane Tree (Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\nThe plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\nPomegranate (Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\nThe pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\nThe pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\nPoplar (Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\nFast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\nThe white poplar (Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\nQuince (Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\nTree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\nReed (Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\nNumerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush (Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush (J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\nAt least 15 kinds of bulrushes (Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush (Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush (S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush (S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\nThe reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed (Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\nRue (Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\nAromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue (Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\nRue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\nRush (Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\nGeneric term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola (Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\nSaffron (Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\nSaffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus (C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\nAnother, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant (Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\nSage (Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\nThis plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\nSpelt (Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\nHardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\nStorax Tree (Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\nSycamore-fig (Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\nTree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\nTamarisk (Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\nTerebinth (Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\nSee<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\nThistle, Thorn (Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\nThere are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\nThe general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade (Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\nThe thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle (Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury (C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury (C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle (Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\nThe references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\nThe cockle of Job 31:40 (nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\nMany commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn (Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\nThe thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn (Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\nTulip (Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip (T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\nTumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\nThe references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed (Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\nVegetable<\/p>\nScriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\nVine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\nAny plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine (Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\nThe grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\nThe wild grape (Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\nWalnut (Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\nWater Lily (Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\nAny of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily (Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\nThe common European white water lily (N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\nAnother water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\nWheat (Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\nVarious cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn (T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar (T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer (T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat (T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\nThe most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\nCorn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\nThe mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\nWormwood (Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\nWormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\nAbsinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","summary_en":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":33812,"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>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nFirst 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>\nThese 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 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 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 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>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nEven 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 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 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nThe 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>\nIt 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>\nThere 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>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\nGod 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nTwenty 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nAfter 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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>\nSaul’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>\nSaul 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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 Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\nIn 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>\nDavid’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>\nDavid 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>\nDavid 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>\nFrom 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>\nDoeg 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>\nDavid 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>\nWhile 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>\nWhile 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>\nDavid 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>\nFor 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nAlthough 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>\nUpon 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>\nAs 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>\nSubsequent 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>\nAlthough 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>\nAfter 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>\nRecognizing 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>\nIt 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>\nDavid 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>\nRemembering 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>\nDuring 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>\nDavid’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>\nAbsalom 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>\nIn 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>\nAt 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nThis 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>\nDavid’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>\nSee also<\/em> David; Samuel (Person); Saul #2.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SAMUEL, Books of First and Second<\/h3>\nPreview<\/p>\n• Name<\/p>\n• Author and Date<\/p>\n• Purpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\n• Content<\/p>\nName<\/p>\nFirst 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>\nThese 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 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 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 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>\nAuthor and Date<\/p>\nEven 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 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 BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n\nPurpose and Theological Teaching<\/p>\nThe 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>\nIt 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>\nThere 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>\nContent<\/p>\n<h5>Samuel (1 Sm 1–7)<\/h5>\n<h6>Samuel’s Youth (1 Sm 1–3)<\/h6>\nGod 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nTwenty 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nAfter 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>\nWhen 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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>\nSaul’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>\nSaul 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>\nThe 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>\nWhen 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 Lord<\/span>’s” (17:47, rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<h6>Saul’s Hatred toward David (1 Sm 18:1–19:24)<\/h6>\nIn 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>\nDavid’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>\nDavid 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>\nDavid 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>\nFrom 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>\nDoeg 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>\nDavid 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>\nWhile 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>\nWhile 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>\nDavid 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>\nFor 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>\nDavid 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>\nThe 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>\nAlthough 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>\nUpon 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>\nAs 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>\nSubsequent 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>\nAlthough 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>\nAfter 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>\nRecognizing 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>\nIt 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>\nDavid 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>\nRemembering 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>\nDuring 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>\nDavid’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>\nAbsalom 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>\nIn 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>\nAt 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nIn 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>\nThis 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>\nDavid’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>\nSee 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}],"7":[{"id":19379,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jesse (Person)","title_en":"Jesse (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JESSE (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nSon of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors.<\/p>\nWhen Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from Saul, Jesse and others of the family came to David in the cave of Adullam. David then brought his father and mother to Mizpah in Moab (22:3). Nothing further is heard of Jesse.<\/p>\nAfter Saul broke with David, he commonly spoke of David derisively as a “son of Jesse” to underscore his humble origins (1 Sm 20:31; 22:7). This same emphasis on Jesse’s modest station in life is found in such messianic references as Isaiah 11:1 and 10, which speak of the “shoot from the stump of Jesse” and “the root of Jesse” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David; Jesse, Root of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JESSE (Person<\/span>)<\/h3>\nSon of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors.<\/p>\nWhen Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from Saul, Jesse and others of the family came to David in the cave of Adullam. David then brought his father and mother to Mizpah in Moab (22:3). Nothing further is heard of Jesse.<\/p>\nAfter Saul broke with David, he commonly spoke of David derisively as a “son of Jesse” to underscore his humble origins (1 Sm 20:31; 22:7). This same emphasis on Jesse’s modest station in life is found in such messianic references as Isaiah 11:1 and 10, which speak of the “shoot from the stump of Jesse” and “the root of Jesse” (rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> David; Jesse, Root of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JESSE (Person) Son of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors. When Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from S...","summary_en":"JESSE (Person) Son of Obed and grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4:17, 22). Jesse was a shepherd from Bethlehem. He had eight sons, of whom David was the youngest. He had at least two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail, who became mothers of famous warriors. When Samuel went to Jesse’s home to search for and anoint a king, Jesse did not at first feel it worthwhile to call David for examination (1 Sm 16:11). Later he sent David to play the lyre for Saul (vv 19-21). After David became a fugitive from S...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46354,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:7","content_ro":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","content_en":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","summary_en":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73980,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:7","content_ro":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","content_en":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","summary_en":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101606,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:7","content_ro":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","content_en":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","summary_en":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129232,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:7","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:7","content_ro":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","content_en":"22:7-8<\/strong> men of Benjamin:<\/em> Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son<\/em>,<\/em> convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","summary_en":"22:7-8 men of Benjamin: Saul was suspicious of his own tribesmen, believing that David had bought their loyalty. Worse, Saul did not even trust his own son, convinced that he had joined the supposed conspiracy.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":873,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahijah","title_en":"Ahijah","content_ro":"<h3>AHIJAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ahitub’s son who served as priest at Shiloh and had charge of the ark of the covenant at Gibeah during Saul’s last campaign (1 Sm 14:3, 18). This Ahijah was evidently either the same person as Ahimelech or closely associated with him (1 Sm 21:1-9; 22:9-20).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of King Solomon’s secretaries (1 Kgs 4:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. Prophet of Shiloh who informed King Solomon’s official, Jeroboam, of the approaching revolt of the 10 northern tribes. Before Solomon died, Ahijah acted out a prophecy before Jeroboam, giving him 10 pieces of his robe, which he had torn into 12 segments, saying that God would tear 10 tribes from Solomon and give them to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 2 Chr 10:15). Later, when Jeroboam had been unfaithful to Israel’s religion, he sent his wife to ask the prophet about their son Abijah’s illness (1 Kgs 14:1-5). Aware of her identity although he was now old and blind, Ahijah predicted both the child’s death and the fall of Jeroboam and his family (1 Kgs 14:6-17; 15:28-30). “The Prophecy of Ahijah from Shiloh” was evidently a written source for Solomon’s biography (2 Chr 9:29).<\/li>\n<li>4. Father of King Baasha of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 15:27-28, 33; 21:22; 2 Kgs 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. Jerahmeel’s son from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 2:25).<\/li>\n<li>6. Ehud’s son (1 Chr 8:7). The Hebrew is difficult to translate; therefore, some English versions make Ahijah one of Ehud’s sons, while others make Ahijah the one who carried Ehud’s sons, Uzza and Ahihud, into exile.<\/li>\n<li>7. Warrior among David’s mighty men who were known as “the thirty” (1 Chr 11:36); also called Eliam the son of Ahithophel (2 Sm 23:34).<\/li>\n<li>8. Levite who oversaw King David’s temple treasury (1 Chr 26:20).<\/li>\n<li>9. Ancestor of the prophet Ezra (2 Esd 1:2).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHIJAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Ahitub’s son who served as priest at Shiloh and had charge of the ark of the covenant at Gibeah during Saul’s last campaign (1 Sm 14:3, 18). This Ahijah was evidently either the same person as Ahimelech or closely associated with him (1 Sm 21:1-9; 22:9-20).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of King Solomon’s secretaries (1 Kgs 4:3).<\/li>\n<li>3. Prophet of Shiloh who informed King Solomon’s official, Jeroboam, of the approaching revolt of the 10 northern tribes. Before Solomon died, Ahijah acted out a prophecy before Jeroboam, giving him 10 pieces of his robe, which he had torn into 12 segments, saying that God would tear 10 tribes from Solomon and give them to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:29-39; 2 Chr 10:15). Later, when Jeroboam had been unfaithful to Israel’s religion, he sent his wife to ask the prophet about their son Abijah’s illness (1 Kgs 14:1-5). Aware of her identity although he was now old and blind, Ahijah predicted both the child’s death and the fall of Jeroboam and his family (1 Kgs 14:6-17; 15:28-30). “The Prophecy of Ahijah from Shiloh” was evidently a written source for Solomon’s biography (2 Chr 9:29).<\/li>\n<li>4. Father of King Baasha of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kgs 15:27-28, 33; 21:22; 2 Kgs 9:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. Jerahmeel’s son from Judah’s tribe (1 Chr 2:25).<\/li>\n<li>6. Ehud’s son (1 Chr 8:7). The Hebrew is difficult to translate; therefore, some English versions make Ahijah one of Ehud’s sons, while others make Ahijah the one who carried Ehud’s sons, Uzza and Ahihud, into exile.<\/li>\n<li>7. Warrior among David’s mighty men who were known as “the thirty” (1 Chr 11:36); also called Eliam the son of Ahithophel (2 Sm 23:34).<\/li>\n<li>8. Levite who oversaw King David’s temple treasury (1 Chr 26:20).<\/li>\n<li>9. Ancestor of the prophet Ezra (2 Esd 1:2).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHIJAH 1. Ahitub’s son who served as priest at Shiloh and had charge of the ark of the covenant at Gibeah during Saul’s last campaign (1 Sm 14:3, 18). This Ahijah was evidently either the same person as Ahimelech or closely associated with him (1 Sm 21:1-9; 22:9-20). 2. One of King Solomon’s secretaries (1 Kgs 4:3). 3. Prophet of Shiloh who informed King Solomon’s official, Jeroboam, of the approaching revolt of the 10 northern tribes. Before Solomon died, Ahijah acted out a prophecy before J...","summary_en":"AHIJAH 1. Ahitub’s son who served as priest at Shiloh and had charge of the ark of the covenant at Gibeah during Saul’s last campaign (1 Sm 14:3, 18). This Ahijah was evidently either the same person as Ahimelech or closely associated with him (1 Sm 21:1-9; 22:9-20). 2. One of King Solomon’s secretaries (1 Kgs 4:3). 3. Prophet of Shiloh who informed King Solomon’s official, Jeroboam, of the approaching revolt of the 10 northern tribes. Before Solomon died, Ahijah acted out a prophecy before J...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":915,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahimelech","title_en":"Ahimelech","content_ro":"<h3>AHIMELECH<\/h3>\n<li>1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9-19). Only Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, escaped and fled to David’s protection (22:20-23). Psalm 52 was written by David as an indictment of Doeg’s treachery.<\/li>\n<li>2. Hittite who joined David’s guerrilla force during his flight from Saul (1 Sm 26:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Abiathar and grandson of #1 above. This Ahimelech aided his father in the priesthood under King David (2 Sm 8:17; 1 Chr 24:3, 5, 31; cf. 1 Chr 18:16, where some versions have Abimelech instead).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHIMELECH<\/h3>\n<li>1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9-19). Only Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, escaped and fled to David’s protection (22:20-23). Psalm 52 was written by David as an indictment of Doeg’s treachery.<\/li>\n<li>2. Hittite who joined David’s guerrilla force during his flight from Saul (1 Sm 26:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Abiathar and grandson of #1 above. This Ahimelech aided his father in the priesthood under King David (2 Sm 8:17; 1 Chr 24:3, 5, 31; cf. 1 Chr 18:16, where some versions have Abimelech instead).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHIMELECH 1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9...","summary_en":"AHIMELECH 1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":954,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahitub","title_en":"Ahitub","content_ro":"<h3>AHITUB<\/h3>\n<li>1. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar. Ahitub was a descendant of Eli through Eli’s son Phinehas and father of Ahijah and Ahimelech, who were priests during Saul’s reign (1 Sm 14:3; 22:9-12, 20).<\/li>\n<li>2. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s third son, Eleazar. Ahitub was Meraioth’s grandson, Amariah’s son, and father of Zadok (1 Chr 6:4-7). Zadok was a chief priest during David’s reign (2 Sm 8:17).<\/li>\n<li>3. Possibly the same as #2 above (the scribes sometimes mistakenly copied names twice), but more likely another member of the priestly line of Eleazar, seven generations after #2 (1 Chr 6:11-12). This Ahitub’s father was also named Amariah and his son or grandson Zadok (1 Chr 9:11; Neh 11:11), but his grandfather was Azariah. Ahitub is listed as an ancestor of Ezra (Ezr 7:2; 1 Esd 8:2; 2 Esd 1:1).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHITUB<\/h3>\n<li>1. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar. Ahitub was a descendant of Eli through Eli’s son Phinehas and father of Ahijah and Ahimelech, who were priests during Saul’s reign (1 Sm 14:3; 22:9-12, 20).<\/li>\n<li>2. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s third son, Eleazar. Ahitub was Meraioth’s grandson, Amariah’s son, and father of Zadok (1 Chr 6:4-7). Zadok was a chief priest during David’s reign (2 Sm 8:17).<\/li>\n<li>3. Possibly the same as #2 above (the scribes sometimes mistakenly copied names twice), but more likely another member of the priestly line of Eleazar, seven generations after #2 (1 Chr 6:11-12). This Ahitub’s father was also named Amariah and his son or grandson Zadok (1 Chr 9:11; Neh 11:11), but his grandfather was Azariah. Ahitub is listed as an ancestor of Ezra (Ezr 7:2; 1 Esd 8:2; 2 Esd 1:1).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHITUB 1. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar. Ahitub was a descendant of Eli through Eli’s son Phinehas and father of Ahijah and Ahimelech, who were priests during Saul’s reign (1 Sm 14:3; 22:9-12, 20). 2. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s third son, Eleazar. Ahitub was Meraioth’s grandson, Amariah’s son, and father of Zadok (1 Chr 6:4-7). Zadok was a chief priest during David’s reign (2 Sm 8:17). 3. Possibly the same as #2 above (the scribes sometimes mistakenl...","summary_en":"AHITUB 1. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar. Ahitub was a descendant of Eli through Eli’s son Phinehas and father of Ahijah and Ahimelech, who were priests during Saul’s reign (1 Sm 14:3; 22:9-12, 20). 2. Member of the priestly line of Aaron’s third son, Eleazar. Ahitub was Meraioth’s grandson, Amariah’s son, and father of Zadok (1 Chr 6:4-7). Zadok was a chief priest during David’s reign (2 Sm 8:17). 3. Possibly the same as #2 above (the scribes sometimes mistakenl...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":9826,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Doeg","title_en":"Doeg","content_ro":"<h3>DOEG<\/h3>\nOfficial of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification process (e.g., a Nazirite vow, Nm 6:13). Possibly he secretly hid there as a spy for Saul. Whatever the case, it is evident that he saw an opportunity to gain favor with Saul when he observed David hospitably treated by the priests, who even supplied him with a weapon—the sword of Goliath (1 Sm 21:9). Shortly thereafter, he had occasion to report this to Saul (22:9-10; Ps 52 title), hoping thereby to demonstrate his loyalty. His brutal killing of the priests and the inhabitants of the city of Nob (1 Sm 22:18-19) shows his ruthless character and intimates further that he was not an Israelite.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DOEG<\/h3>\nOfficial of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification process (e.g., a Nazirite vow, Nm 6:13). Possibly he secretly hid there as a spy for Saul. Whatever the case, it is evident that he saw an opportunity to gain favor with Saul when he observed David hospitably treated by the priests, who even supplied him with a weapon—the sword of Goliath (1 Sm 21:9). Shortly thereafter, he had occasion to report this to Saul (22:9-10; Ps 52 title), hoping thereby to demonstrate his loyalty. His brutal killing of the priests and the inhabitants of the city of Nob (1 Sm 22:18-19) shows his ruthless character and intimates further that he was not an Israelite.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DOEG Official of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification proces...","summary_en":"DOEG Official of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification proces...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10100,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Edomites Edom","title_en":"Edomites Edom","content_ro":"<h3>EDOM, EDOMITES<\/h3>\nLand and its inhabitants found on the high plateau to the south and southeast of the Dead Sea. The biblical term Edom, meaning “red,” denotes either the name of the land or the name of Esau, in remembrance of the red pottage or stew for which he exchanged his birthright (Gn 25:30; 36:1, 8, 19). The country of Edom was also known as Seir (Gn 32:3; 36:30; Nm 24:18).<\/p>\nGeography<\/p>\nThe northern boundary of Edom was the Wadi Zered, the “Brook of the Willows” (Is 15:7). In ancient geological times the area was thrust up to a considerable height, and dark-red sandstone cliffs were exposed along the western side where the land falls steeply into the Arabah, the southern extension of the deep depression in which the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley lie. The Edom Plateau rises to over 5,000 feet (1,523.9 meters), reaching over 5,600 feet (1,706.8 meters) in places. The area divides into two unequal parts. The region of Punon forms something of a valley between the smaller northern part and the longer southern part. The northern section is not quite so high, though in a limited area near Radhadiyeh it reaches 5,300 feet (1,615.4 meters). The southern section is longer and generally higher, being over 5,000 feet (1,523.9 meters) throughout the central ridge and touching 5,687 feet (1,733.3 meters) at one point. To the east, the escarpment does not fall below 4,000 feet (1,219.1 meters), except in the north. The desert lies beyond and limits expansion eastward. To the west, the land falls away rather steeply into the Arabah. The extent of Edom to the west varied from time to time. It was comparatively easy to gain access to the Negev of southern Judah in this area, and Edomite encroachments were made from time to time. The southern frontier was marked by an extensive limestone scarp at the southern edge of the plateau. This ran eastward from Ain Gharandal in the Arabah. Beyond this barrier to the south lay rocky, uninhabitable desert, through which merchants must have journeyed to the port at Ezion-geber for trade.<\/p>\nThe land of Edom was, on the whole, inhospitable, though there were areas where farming could be undertaken, particularly to the northeast. Here herds of animals could be grazed. Edom’s wealth, however, came largely from the caravan trade that came up from the south and brought goods from India and South Arabia to the Mediterranean coast and Egypt. The important King’s Highway (Nm 21:22) passed through Edom on its way north.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nBiblically, the name Edom does not appear in the genealogy in Genesis 10. It first appears in the story of Esau in Genesis 25:30. Esau was called Edom from the red color of the pottage for which he sold his birthright to his brother, Jacob. In Genesis 36 there is reference to an Edomite kingdom at a time well before the appearance of an Israelite kingdom, though it is possible that the “chiefs” of Edom were tribal chieftains or non-dynastic leaders like the Israelite judges.<\/p>\nThe earliest nonbiblical references come from Egypt and seem to confirm this. Amarna Letter 288 (early 14th century BC<\/span>) refers to the “lands of Seir,” and the crossing of the Shashu tribes of Edom into Egypt is mentioned by Seti II (1214–1208 BC<\/span>) and Ramses III (1198–1166 BC<\/span>). There are no Egyptian references to towns or rulers, only to tribal Bedouin from Seir-Edom. There is some evidence that Ramses II was in Transjordan about 1280–1270 BC<\/span>, but there is no clear evidence that there was a centralized government before the 13th century BC<\/span>. Rather, the land was occupied mainly by seminomadic people. From then on, permanent settlements began to appear, a fact that has relevance for the date of the exodus. The Song of Moses in Exodus 15 refers to the “chiefs of Edom.” By the time of the exodus, there appears to have been a kingdom of Edom (Nm 20:14, 18, 20-23; 33:37; 34:3). The Israelites skirted Edom on their journey to the Promised Land (Jgs 5:4; 11:17-18).<\/p>\nAt the time of the rise of the Israelite monarchy, Saul fought successfully against Edom (1 Sm 14:47). Doeg the Edomite was the chief of Saul’s herdsmen (21:7; 22:9, 18-22). At the beginning of the 10th century BC<\/span>, David defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt and killed many Edomites (2 Sm 8:13; 1 Chr 18:12). Thereafter, David placed garrisons in Edom, and the Edomites became his subjects (2 Sm 8:14). It is not clear whether David saw in these people a military threat or whether he was interested in the supply of copper from their land and the potential wealth that would flow from the caravan traffic passing through Edom. David’s successes resulted in the flight of a certain Hadad, who was “of the royal house of Edom” to Egypt (1 Kgs 11:14-17), where he married a member of the Egyptian royal family (vv 18-20). On David’s death, Hadad returned to Edom, where he became king. It would seem that a monarchical form of government had developed by David’s time. Solomon continued to exert influence in Edom. He had access to the port of Ezion-geber (9:26).<\/p>\nThe biblical records provide no information about Edom from the end of Solomon’s reign until the days of Jehoshaphat of Judah (872–848 BC<\/span>). Jehoshaphat was able to occupy the port of Ezion-geber, although his ships were wrecked there, possibly by the Edomites (1 Kgs 22:48; 2 Chr 20:36-37). Israel combined with Judah and Edom in an unsuccessful campaign against King Mesha of Moab (2 Kgs 3:4-27). Edom was able to throw off Judah’s authority under King Jehoram (853–841 BC<\/span>) and set up a king of its own (8:20-22). It remained independent until the days of King Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), who conquered Edom as far south as Sela, defeating a large army of the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (2 Kgs 14:7; 2 Chr 25:11-13). This gave Judah control of the copper mines in the Punon area. King Uzziah of Judah (792–740 BC<\/span>) was able to push his control south to Elath (near Ezion-geber; 2 Kgs 14:22; 2 Chr 26:1-2). Before the end of the eighth century BC<\/span>, in the days of Ahaz (735–715 BC<\/span>), Edom defeated Judah and recovered Elath (2 Kgs 16:6). Thereafter, Judah lost control over Edom.<\/p>\nDuring the eighth century BC<\/span>, the Assyrians began to move into Transjordan. About 800 BC<\/span> Adad-nirari III (810–782 BC<\/span>) claimed to have conquered several of these western states and to have imposed the payment of tribute. Then Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC<\/span>) received tribute from Qaus-malaku of Edom. Sargon II (722–705 BC<\/span>) spoke of an unnamed ruler of Edom who was involved in the rebellion of Ashdod in 713 BC<\/span>. Sennacherib (705–681 BC<\/span>) spoke of a certain Aiarammu, who brought gifts from Edom. Esarhaddon (681–669 BC<\/span>) referred to Qaus-gabri, king of Edom, who came to Nineveh with 22 vassals to swear allegiance. Under Ashurbanipal (669–627 BC<\/span>), Edom appears on Assyrian records. Thereafter, Assyria itself was defeated by the Babylonians. Under the Babylonians, Edom seems to have remained a subservient vassal, although in 594 it joined other small nations in discussing rebellion (Jer 27). When Nebuchadnezzar attacked these, however, Moab and Edom were not involved. In the overthrow of Jerusalem in 586, Edom remained neutral and even allowed some refugees from Judah to shelter there for a time (40:11). The prophet Obadiah castigated Edom for not assisting Judah at the time of the Babylonian invasion (Ob 1:11). Instead, they raided Judah, handed over captives to Babylon, and possessed lands in the Negev area to the south (Ez 35).<\/p>\nA long history of enmity existed between Judah and Edom, and several prophets spoke unfavorably about Edom (Is 11:14; 34:5-17; Ez 32:29; Jl 3:19; Am 1:11-12; Mal 1:2-4). In the sixth century BC<\/span>, Edom entered a period of decline. Several cities were abandoned. At the same time Edomite colonies west of the Arabah in the southern hill country of Judah emerged, and by Roman times there was a province of Idumea, which was the descendant of the Persian province of Edom, with its administrative center at Lachish. In the old Edomite homeland, Arab groups began to move in. Finally, ancient Edom became the home of the Nabateans.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EDOM, EDOMITES<\/h3>\nLand and its inhabitants found on the high plateau to the south and southeast of the Dead Sea. The biblical term Edom, meaning “red,” denotes either the name of the land or the name of Esau, in remembrance of the red pottage or stew for which he exchanged his birthright (Gn 25:30; 36:1, 8, 19). The country of Edom was also known as Seir (Gn 32:3; 36:30; Nm 24:18).<\/p>\nGeography<\/p>\nThe northern boundary of Edom was the Wadi Zered, the “Brook of the Willows” (Is 15:7). In ancient geological times the area was thrust up to a considerable height, and dark-red sandstone cliffs were exposed along the western side where the land falls steeply into the Arabah, the southern extension of the deep depression in which the Dead Sea and the Jordan Valley lie. The Edom Plateau rises to over 5,000 feet (1,523.9 meters), reaching over 5,600 feet (1,706.8 meters) in places. The area divides into two unequal parts. The region of Punon forms something of a valley between the smaller northern part and the longer southern part. The northern section is not quite so high, though in a limited area near Radhadiyeh it reaches 5,300 feet (1,615.4 meters). The southern section is longer and generally higher, being over 5,000 feet (1,523.9 meters) throughout the central ridge and touching 5,687 feet (1,733.3 meters) at one point. To the east, the escarpment does not fall below 4,000 feet (1,219.1 meters), except in the north. The desert lies beyond and limits expansion eastward. To the west, the land falls away rather steeply into the Arabah. The extent of Edom to the west varied from time to time. It was comparatively easy to gain access to the Negev of southern Judah in this area, and Edomite encroachments were made from time to time. The southern frontier was marked by an extensive limestone scarp at the southern edge of the plateau. This ran eastward from Ain Gharandal in the Arabah. Beyond this barrier to the south lay rocky, uninhabitable desert, through which merchants must have journeyed to the port at Ezion-geber for trade.<\/p>\nThe land of Edom was, on the whole, inhospitable, though there were areas where farming could be undertaken, particularly to the northeast. Here herds of animals could be grazed. Edom’s wealth, however, came largely from the caravan trade that came up from the south and brought goods from India and South Arabia to the Mediterranean coast and Egypt. The important King’s Highway (Nm 21:22) passed through Edom on its way north.<\/p>\nHistory<\/p>\nBiblically, the name Edom does not appear in the genealogy in Genesis 10. It first appears in the story of Esau in Genesis 25:30. Esau was called Edom from the red color of the pottage for which he sold his birthright to his brother, Jacob. In Genesis 36 there is reference to an Edomite kingdom at a time well before the appearance of an Israelite kingdom, though it is possible that the “chiefs” of Edom were tribal chieftains or non-dynastic leaders like the Israelite judges.<\/p>\nThe earliest nonbiblical references come from Egypt and seem to confirm this. Amarna Letter 288 (early 14th century BC<\/span>) refers to the “lands of Seir,” and the crossing of the Shashu tribes of Edom into Egypt is mentioned by Seti II (1214–1208 BC<\/span>) and Ramses III (1198–1166 BC<\/span>). There are no Egyptian references to towns or rulers, only to tribal Bedouin from Seir-Edom. There is some evidence that Ramses II was in Transjordan about 1280–1270 BC<\/span>, but there is no clear evidence that there was a centralized government before the 13th century BC<\/span>. Rather, the land was occupied mainly by seminomadic people. From then on, permanent settlements began to appear, a fact that has relevance for the date of the exodus. The Song of Moses in Exodus 15 refers to the “chiefs of Edom.” By the time of the exodus, there appears to have been a kingdom of Edom (Nm 20:14, 18, 20-23; 33:37; 34:3). The Israelites skirted Edom on their journey to the Promised Land (Jgs 5:4; 11:17-18).<\/p>\nAt the time of the rise of the Israelite monarchy, Saul fought successfully against Edom (1 Sm 14:47). Doeg the Edomite was the chief of Saul’s herdsmen (21:7; 22:9, 18-22). At the beginning of the 10th century BC<\/span>, David defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt and killed many Edomites (2 Sm 8:13; 1 Chr 18:12). Thereafter, David placed garrisons in Edom, and the Edomites became his subjects (2 Sm 8:14). It is not clear whether David saw in these people a military threat or whether he was interested in the supply of copper from their land and the potential wealth that would flow from the caravan traffic passing through Edom. David’s successes resulted in the flight of a certain Hadad, who was “of the royal house of Edom” to Egypt (1 Kgs 11:14-17), where he married a member of the Egyptian royal family (vv 18-20). On David’s death, Hadad returned to Edom, where he became king. It would seem that a monarchical form of government had developed by David’s time. Solomon continued to exert influence in Edom. He had access to the port of Ezion-geber (9:26).<\/p>\nThe biblical records provide no information about Edom from the end of Solomon’s reign until the days of Jehoshaphat of Judah (872–848 BC<\/span>). Jehoshaphat was able to occupy the port of Ezion-geber, although his ships were wrecked there, possibly by the Edomites (1 Kgs 22:48; 2 Chr 20:36-37). Israel combined with Judah and Edom in an unsuccessful campaign against King Mesha of Moab (2 Kgs 3:4-27). Edom was able to throw off Judah’s authority under King Jehoram (853–841 BC<\/span>) and set up a king of its own (8:20-22). It remained independent until the days of King Amaziah of Judah (796–767 BC<\/span>), who conquered Edom as far south as Sela, defeating a large army of the Edomites in the Valley of Salt (2 Kgs 14:7; 2 Chr 25:11-13). This gave Judah control of the copper mines in the Punon area. King Uzziah of Judah (792–740 BC<\/span>) was able to push his control south to Elath (near Ezion-geber; 2 Kgs 14:22; 2 Chr 26:1-2). Before the end of the eighth century BC<\/span>, in the days of Ahaz (735–715 BC<\/span>), Edom defeated Judah and recovered Elath (2 Kgs 16:6). Thereafter, Judah lost control over Edom.<\/p>\nDuring the eighth century BC<\/span>, the Assyrians began to move into Transjordan. About 800 BC<\/span> Adad-nirari III (810–782 BC<\/span>) claimed to have conquered several of these western states and to have imposed the payment of tribute. Then Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC<\/span>) received tribute from Qaus-malaku of Edom. Sargon II (722–705 BC<\/span>) spoke of an unnamed ruler of Edom who was involved in the rebellion of Ashdod in 713 BC<\/span>. Sennacherib (705–681 BC<\/span>) spoke of a certain Aiarammu, who brought gifts from Edom. Esarhaddon (681–669 BC<\/span>) referred to Qaus-gabri, king of Edom, who came to Nineveh with 22 vassals to swear allegiance. Under Ashurbanipal (669–627 BC<\/span>), Edom appears on Assyrian records. Thereafter, Assyria itself was defeated by the Babylonians. Under the Babylonians, Edom seems to have remained a subservient vassal, although in 594 it joined other small nations in discussing rebellion (Jer 27). When Nebuchadnezzar attacked these, however, Moab and Edom were not involved. In the overthrow of Jerusalem in 586, Edom remained neutral and even allowed some refugees from Judah to shelter there for a time (40:11). The prophet Obadiah castigated Edom for not assisting Judah at the time of the Babylonian invasion (Ob 1:11). Instead, they raided Judah, handed over captives to Babylon, and possessed lands in the Negev area to the south (Ez 35).<\/p>\nA long history of enmity existed between Judah and Edom, and several prophets spoke unfavorably about Edom (Is 11:14; 34:5-17; Ez 32:29; Jl 3:19; Am 1:11-12; Mal 1:2-4). In the sixth century BC<\/span>, Edom entered a period of decline. Several cities were abandoned. At the same time Edomite colonies west of the Arabah in the southern hill country of Judah emerged, and by Roman times there was a province of Idumea, which was the descendant of the Persian province of Edom, with its administrative center at Lachish. In the old Edomite homeland, Arab groups began to move in. Finally, ancient Edom became the home of the Nabateans.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EDOM, EDOMITES Land and its inhabitants found on the high plateau to the south and southeast of the Dead Sea. The biblical term Edom, meaning “red,” denotes either the name of the land or the name of Esau, in remembrance of the red pottage or stew for which he exchanged his birthright (Gn 25:30; 36:1, 8, 19). The country of Edom was also known as Seir (Gn 32:3; 36:30; Nm 24:18). Geography The northern boundary of Edom was the Wadi Zered, the “Brook of the Willows” (Is 15:7). In ancient geolog...","summary_en":"EDOM, EDOMITES Land and its inhabitants found on the high plateau to the south and southeast of the Dead Sea. The biblical term Edom, meaning “red,” denotes either the name of the land or the name of Esau, in remembrance of the red pottage or stew for which he exchanged his birthright (Gn 25:30; 36:1, 8, 19). The country of Edom was also known as Seir (Gn 32:3; 36:30; Nm 24:18). Geography The northern boundary of Edom was the Wadi Zered, the “Brook of the Willows” (Is 15:7). In ancient geolog...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39789,"type":"chart","type_label":"Diagramă","type_icon":"📊","type_color":"#3b82f6","title_ro":"Some Psalms from David’s Experiences","title_en":"Psalms from David’s Experiences, Some","content_ro":"<table>\n <tr>\n <td>Psalm<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>Historical Reference<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>59<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 19:11<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>56<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>34<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:13<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>142<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>52<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:9<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>54<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 23:19<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>57<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>7<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:11-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>18<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 7:1; 22<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>32<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>51<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>3<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 15:16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>63<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 16:2<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","content_en":"<table>\n <tr>\n <td>Psalm<\/em><\/p><\/td>\n <td>Historical Reference<\/em><\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>59<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 19:11<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>56<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:10<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>34<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 21:13<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>142<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>52<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 22:9<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>54<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 23:19<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>57<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:1<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>7<\/p><\/td>\n <td>1 Sm 24:11-12<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>18<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 7:1; 22<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>32<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>51<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 12:13-14<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>3<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 15:16<\/p><\/td><\/tr>\n <tr>\n <td>63<\/p><\/td>\n <td>2 Sm 16:2<\/p><\/td><\/tr><\/table>","summary_ro":"Psalm Historical Reference 59 1 Sm 19:11 56 1 Sm 21:10 34 1 Sm 21:13 142 1 Sm 22:1 52 1 Sm 22:9 54 1 Sm 23:19 57 1 Sm 24:1 7 1 Sm 24:11-12 18 2 Sm 7:1; 22 32 2 Sm 12:13-14 51 2 Sm 12:13-14 3 2 Sm 15:16 63 2 Sm 16:2","summary_en":"Psalm Historical Reference 59 1 Sm 19:11 56 1 Sm 21:10 34 1 Sm 21:13 142 1 Sm 22:1 52 1 Sm 22:9 54 1 Sm 23:19 57 1 Sm 24:1 7 1 Sm 24:11-12 18 2 Sm 7:1; 22 32 2 Sm 12:13-14 51 2 Sm 12:13-14 3 2 Sm 15:16 63 2 Sm 16:2","source":"Charts\/Charts.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":14468,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Goliath","title_en":"Goliath","content_ro":"<h3>GOLIATH<\/h3>\nEleventh-century BC<\/span> Philistine warrior from Gath, who challenged Israel to battle (1 Sm 17). He was subsequently felled and decapitated by the youthful David. Goliath was over nine feet (2.7 meters) tall, wore armor weighing about 125 pounds (56.8 kilograms), and carried a spear of 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) weight. His sword, kept at Nob, was later given to David (1 Sm 21:9; 22:10). He may have descended from the Anakim (see Jos 11:22), but his height could have resulted from an anterior pituitary tumor. In 2 Samuel 21:19 his death is attributed to Elhanan, who in 1 Chronicles 20:5 is credited with killing Goliath’s brother.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GOLIATH<\/h3>\nEleventh-century BC<\/span> Philistine warrior from Gath, who challenged Israel to battle (1 Sm 17). He was subsequently felled and decapitated by the youthful David. Goliath was over nine feet (2.7 meters) tall, wore armor weighing about 125 pounds (56.8 kilograms), and carried a spear of 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) weight. His sword, kept at Nob, was later given to David (1 Sm 21:9; 22:10). He may have descended from the Anakim (see Jos 11:22), but his height could have resulted from an anterior pituitary tumor. In 2 Samuel 21:19 his death is attributed to Elhanan, who in 1 Chronicles 20:5 is credited with killing Goliath’s brother.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GOLIATH Eleventh-century BC Philistine warrior from Gath, who challenged Israel to battle (1 Sm 17). He was subsequently felled and decapitated by the youthful David. Goliath was over nine feet (2.7 meters) tall, wore armor weighing about 125 pounds (56.8 kilograms), and carried a spear of 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) weight. His sword, kept at Nob, was later given to David (1 Sm 21:9; 22:10). He may have descended from the Anakim (see Jos 11:22), but his height could have resulted from an anter...","summary_en":"GOLIATH Eleventh-century BC Philistine warrior from Gath, who challenged Israel to battle (1 Sm 17). He was subsequently felled and decapitated by the youthful David. Goliath was over nine feet (2.7 meters) tall, wore armor weighing about 125 pounds (56.8 kilograms), and carried a spear of 15 pounds (6.8 kilograms) weight. His sword, kept at Nob, was later given to David (1 Sm 21:9; 22:10). He may have descended from the Anakim (see Jos 11:22), but his height could have resulted from an anter...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":27638,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Nob","title_en":"Nob","content_ro":"<h3>NOB<\/h3>\nCity located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there.<\/p>\nThe episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cites David’s hunger as a just reason for breaking the ritual laws governing Sabbath observance (Mk 2:23-28). David, fleeing from Saul and needing food, went into the sanctuary at Nob and took the loaves laid out each Sabbath as an offering to the Lord.<\/p>\nAhimelech, a descendant of Eli and leader of the priests of Nob, gave the showbread to David, along with the sword with which Goliath had been slain. This incensed Saul, who ordered the murder of Ahimelech and the massacre of all the priests and citizens of Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23), an act that sealed the fate of the king. Abiathar, a priest who evaded the massacre, played a prominent role in the reign of David until Solomon eventually removed him from his position (1 Kgs 2:26-27). The phrase “where God was worshiped” may refer to the sanctuary at Nob (2 Sm 15:32).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>NOB<\/h3>\nCity located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there.<\/p>\nThe episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cites David’s hunger as a just reason for breaking the ritual laws governing Sabbath observance (Mk 2:23-28). David, fleeing from Saul and needing food, went into the sanctuary at Nob and took the loaves laid out each Sabbath as an offering to the Lord.<\/p>\nAhimelech, a descendant of Eli and leader of the priests of Nob, gave the showbread to David, along with the sword with which Goliath had been slain. This incensed Saul, who ordered the murder of Ahimelech and the massacre of all the priests and citizens of Nob (1 Sm 22:6-23), an act that sealed the fate of the king. Abiathar, a priest who evaded the massacre, played a prominent role in the reign of David until Solomon eventually removed him from his position (1 Kgs 2:26-27). The phrase “where God was worshiped” may refer to the sanctuary at Nob (2 Sm 15:32).<\/p>","summary_ro":"NOB City located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there. The episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cit...","summary_en":"NOB City located on the eastern slopes of Mt Scopus opposite the Mt of Olives and northeast of Jerusalem. An important religious center, 86 priests resided there, as did the ephod (1 Sm 22:13-20). Nob was the central sanctuary in which the priests served who had fled from Shiloh when the Philistines destroyed the sanctuary there. The episode of David and the priests of Nob (1 Sm 21:2-7) attests to the antiquity of the details of the table and the bread of the presence (Ex 37:10-16). Jesus cit...","source":"Articles\/N.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46355,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:13","content_ro":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","content_en":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","summary_en":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73981,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:13","content_ro":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","content_en":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","summary_en":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101607,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:13","content_ro":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","content_en":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","summary_en":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129233,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:13","content_ro":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","content_en":"22:13<\/strong> David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","summary_en":"22:13 David had deceived Ahimelech into thinking he was on a mission for Saul (21:1-9), so Saul’s accusations of conspiracy were baseless.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"14":[{"id":46356,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:14","content_ro":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","content_en":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","summary_en":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73982,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:14","content_ro":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","content_en":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","summary_en":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101608,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:14","content_ro":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","content_en":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","summary_en":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129234,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:14","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:14","content_ro":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","content_en":"22:14<\/strong> your son-in-law:<\/em> David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","summary_en":"22:14 your son-in-law: David had married Saul’s daughter (18:17-29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":17306,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Imputation*","title_en":"Imputation*","content_ro":"<h3>IMPUTATION*<\/h3>\nCharging to an account, used in the Bible with legal reference to sin and salvation being recorded by God. The biblical teaching on imputation represents one of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. Although the noun form is not found in Scripture, the verb “to impute” occurs frequently in both the OT and NT. The basic meaning of the biblical word “impute” is “to set down in a record or a ledger.” In relation to the doctrine of salvation, the word is consistently used in a legal sense. Philemon 1:18, which affirms that the apostle Paul assumed the debt of Onesimus, aptly illustrates the predominant theological usage of the word: “if he . . . owes you anything, charge that to my account.”<\/p>\nWhen Scripture speaks of the imputation of good or evil, it does not suggest that any change of moral character is involved. Scripture does affirm that, from God’s perspective, righteousness or sin is charged to an individual’s account. In the broadest sense, Scripture teaches that God participates in the process of imputing (Ps 32:2) as do people (1 Sm 22:15). Good deeds were commonly imputed for reward (Ps 106:30-31), and evil deeds were imputed for punishment (Lv 17:3-4).<\/p>\nThe Bible sets forth the theological concept of imputation in three distinct yet related ways. First, Scripture affirms the imputation of Adam’s original sin to the entire human race. In the sovereign plan of God, the first man’s initial act of disobedience was set to the account of every member of the human family. Every person thus participates in the guilt and penalty of that original sin. Second, the sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to Christ, so that although the Savior was not a sinner, he nevertheless bore the penalty arising from sin. Finally, the Bible teaches that, as a result of his atoning work, Christ’s righteousness is set to the believer’s account. Although not yet perfectly holy or morally righteous, believers nevertheless are justified before the law of God, and they are “clothed” with the imputed righteousness of Christ.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul developed at length the theme that Christ on the cross bore the punishment for believers’ sins. Thus he wrote that God “made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21, rsv<\/span>; cf. Heb 9:28). Similarly, he depicted Christ as bearing the curse of the Mosaic law (Gal 3:13). Finally, reflecting on Isaiah 53, the apostle Peter affirmed that Christ “personally carried away our sins in his own body on the cross” (1 Pt 2:24, nlt<\/span>). The idea that the guilt of the entire world was charged to the account of the sinless Savior largely explains Christ’s impassioned cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe imputation motif is also employed, in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being credited to believers. An incident in the life of the patriarch Abraham illustrates the imputation of righteousness on the basis of faith. After God had promised material and spiritual blessing to Abraham, Genesis 15:6 states that he “believed the Lord<\/span>; and he [God] reckoned it to him as righteousness” (rsv<\/span>). The Bible teaches that no person naturally possesses the standard of righteousness demanded by God (Ps 130:3; Is 64:6; Rom 3:10). Yet, in his gracious plan of salvation, God himself supplies the righteousness to satisfy his holy character (Is 45:24; 54:17; Hos 10:12). That is, as a person accepts by faith the work of Christ in satisfying the demands of God’s law, God imputes or reckons Christ’s righteousness to the believer.<\/p>\nThe imputation of divine righteousness to the believer constitutes a major theme of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Rom 3:21–5:21). Thus the apostle speaks of the happiness of an undeserving sinner who is declared to be righteous (4:6). Moreover, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness results in justification before God’s law court (5:18). The merits of Christ’s death imputed to the sinner are the basis for acquittal by the holy God. Thus the Bible teaches that the ruinous effects of the imputation of Adam’s sin are effectively reversed for those who believe in Christ. The imputation of human sin to Christ makes possible the imputation of his righteousness to believers.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Christology; Fall of Man; Sin.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>IMPUTATION*<\/h3>\nCharging to an account, used in the Bible with legal reference to sin and salvation being recorded by God. The biblical teaching on imputation represents one of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. Although the noun form is not found in Scripture, the verb “to impute” occurs frequently in both the OT and NT. The basic meaning of the biblical word “impute” is “to set down in a record or a ledger.” In relation to the doctrine of salvation, the word is consistently used in a legal sense. Philemon 1:18, which affirms that the apostle Paul assumed the debt of Onesimus, aptly illustrates the predominant theological usage of the word: “if he . . . owes you anything, charge that to my account.”<\/p>\nWhen Scripture speaks of the imputation of good or evil, it does not suggest that any change of moral character is involved. Scripture does affirm that, from God’s perspective, righteousness or sin is charged to an individual’s account. In the broadest sense, Scripture teaches that God participates in the process of imputing (Ps 32:2) as do people (1 Sm 22:15). Good deeds were commonly imputed for reward (Ps 106:30-31), and evil deeds were imputed for punishment (Lv 17:3-4).<\/p>\nThe Bible sets forth the theological concept of imputation in three distinct yet related ways. First, Scripture affirms the imputation of Adam’s original sin to the entire human race. In the sovereign plan of God, the first man’s initial act of disobedience was set to the account of every member of the human family. Every person thus participates in the guilt and penalty of that original sin. Second, the sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to Christ, so that although the Savior was not a sinner, he nevertheless bore the penalty arising from sin. Finally, the Bible teaches that, as a result of his atoning work, Christ’s righteousness is set to the believer’s account. Although not yet perfectly holy or morally righteous, believers nevertheless are justified before the law of God, and they are “clothed” with the imputed righteousness of Christ.<\/p>\nThe apostle Paul developed at length the theme that Christ on the cross bore the punishment for believers’ sins. Thus he wrote that God “made him to be sin who knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21, rsv<\/span>; cf. Heb 9:28). Similarly, he depicted Christ as bearing the curse of the Mosaic law (Gal 3:13). Finally, reflecting on Isaiah 53, the apostle Peter affirmed that Christ “personally carried away our sins in his own body on the cross” (1 Pt 2:24, nlt<\/span>). The idea that the guilt of the entire world was charged to the account of the sinless Savior largely explains Christ’s impassioned cry on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46, nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\nThe imputation motif is also employed, in the sense of Christ’s righteousness being credited to believers. An incident in the life of the patriarch Abraham illustrates the imputation of righteousness on the basis of faith. After God had promised material and spiritual blessing to Abraham, Genesis 15:6 states that he “believed the Lord<\/span>; and he [God] reckoned it to him as righteousness” (rsv<\/span>). The Bible teaches that no person naturally possesses the standard of righteousness demanded by God (Ps 130:3; Is 64:6; Rom 3:10). Yet, in his gracious plan of salvation, God himself supplies the righteousness to satisfy his holy character (Is 45:24; 54:17; Hos 10:12). That is, as a person accepts by faith the work of Christ in satisfying the demands of God’s law, God imputes or reckons Christ’s righteousness to the believer.<\/p>\nThe imputation of divine righteousness to the believer constitutes a major theme of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Rom 3:21–5:21). Thus the apostle speaks of the happiness of an undeserving sinner who is declared to be righteous (4:6). Moreover, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness results in justification before God’s law court (5:18). The merits of Christ’s death imputed to the sinner are the basis for acquittal by the holy God. Thus the Bible teaches that the ruinous effects of the imputation of Adam’s sin are effectively reversed for those who believe in Christ. The imputation of human sin to Christ makes possible the imputation of his righteousness to believers.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Adam (Person); Christology; Fall of Man; Sin.<\/p>","summary_ro":"IMPUTATION* Charging to an account, used in the Bible with legal reference to sin and salvation being recorded by God. The biblical teaching on imputation represents one of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. Although the noun form is not found in Scripture, the verb “to impute” occurs frequently in both the OT and NT. The basic meaning of the biblical word “impute” is “to set down in a record or a ledger.” In relation to the doctrine of salvation, the word is consistently used in...","summary_en":"IMPUTATION* Charging to an account, used in the Bible with legal reference to sin and salvation being recorded by God. The biblical teaching on imputation represents one of the principal doctrines of the Christian faith. Although the noun form is not found in Scripture, the verb “to impute” occurs frequently in both the OT and NT. The basic meaning of the biblical word “impute” is “to set down in a record or a ledger.” In relation to the doctrine of salvation, the word is consistently used in...","source":"Articles\/I.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"18":[{"id":9828,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Doeg","title_en":"Doeg","content_ro":"<h3>DOEG<\/h3>\nOfficial of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification process (e.g., a Nazirite vow, Nm 6:13). Possibly he secretly hid there as a spy for Saul. Whatever the case, it is evident that he saw an opportunity to gain favor with Saul when he observed David hospitably treated by the priests, who even supplied him with a weapon—the sword of Goliath (1 Sm 21:9). Shortly thereafter, he had occasion to report this to Saul (22:9-10; Ps 52 title), hoping thereby to demonstrate his loyalty. His brutal killing of the priests and the inhabitants of the city of Nob (1 Sm 22:18-19) shows his ruthless character and intimates further that he was not an Israelite.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>DOEG<\/h3>\nOfficial of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification process (e.g., a Nazirite vow, Nm 6:13). Possibly he secretly hid there as a spy for Saul. Whatever the case, it is evident that he saw an opportunity to gain favor with Saul when he observed David hospitably treated by the priests, who even supplied him with a weapon—the sword of Goliath (1 Sm 21:9). Shortly thereafter, he had occasion to report this to Saul (22:9-10; Ps 52 title), hoping thereby to demonstrate his loyalty. His brutal killing of the priests and the inhabitants of the city of Nob (1 Sm 22:18-19) shows his ruthless character and intimates further that he was not an Israelite.<\/p>","summary_ro":"DOEG Official of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification proces...","summary_en":"DOEG Official of Saul who was commanded to kill the innocent priests at Nob (1 Sm 21–22). An Edomite, he was either a proselyte or a prominent Edomite chieftain captured by Saul (14:47). He was subsequently given supervision over Saul’s flocks (21:7; cf. 1 Chr 27:30, where David had a foreign head over his herd). The reason for his presence at the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:7) is not clear, though he had some religious purpose in being there, maybe being detained while in a purification proces...","source":"Articles\/D.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10949,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ephod (Garment)","title_en":"Ephod (Garment)","content_ro":"<h3>EPHOD (Garment)<\/h3>\nUpper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests.<\/p>\nMade of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarlet, and gold. At the upper end were attached two shoulder straps, each having an onyx stone inscribed with the names of Israel’s 12 tribes. The breastplate, also containing the tribal names, was bound to the ephod by an elaborate series of cords and chains (Ex 28:22-29).<\/p>\nJewish writers suggest various appearances for the ephod: (1) apronlike, covering the body from the chest to the heels; (2) enveloping the body only from the waist down, the upper body being covered by the breastplate; or (3) sleeved and jacketlike, with the middle of the breast uncovered so the breastplate could be inserted easily.<\/p>\nPrior to the Babylonian exile, the ephod served as a means of revelation from God, especially concerning military operations. Abiathar the priest brought the ephod into David’s camp on one occasion for consulting the Lord (1 Sm 23:6-9; 30:7). It is uncertain whether the priest donned or held the ephod whole, seeking counsel from the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nDuring the period of the judges, the ephod was often misused, as by Gideon (Jgs 8:27), Micah (17:5), and Jonathan, grandson of Moses (18:30; cf. vv 14, 17, 20). Either the garment itself or an image that represented God, on which the garment was placed, was worshiped as the people sought revelation in a manner condemned by God. Household idols (teraphim) were also associated with this ungodly practice (17:5; Hos 3:4).<\/p>\nBesides the high priest, other priests wore an ephod for certain religious services (1 Sm 22:18), and even Samuel (2:18) and David (2 Sm 6:14) wore one. By the postexilic period, and perhaps as early as Solomon, the ephod was no longer consulted (Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65). There was no need for ephod or Urim revelation once there was the more complete revelation of the prophetic ministry promised by Moses (Dt 18:15-22). However, the high priest continued to wear this vestment until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>EPHOD (Garment)<\/h3>\nUpper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests.<\/p>\nMade of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarlet, and gold. At the upper end were attached two shoulder straps, each having an onyx stone inscribed with the names of Israel’s 12 tribes. The breastplate, also containing the tribal names, was bound to the ephod by an elaborate series of cords and chains (Ex 28:22-29).<\/p>\nJewish writers suggest various appearances for the ephod: (1) apronlike, covering the body from the chest to the heels; (2) enveloping the body only from the waist down, the upper body being covered by the breastplate; or (3) sleeved and jacketlike, with the middle of the breast uncovered so the breastplate could be inserted easily.<\/p>\nPrior to the Babylonian exile, the ephod served as a means of revelation from God, especially concerning military operations. Abiathar the priest brought the ephod into David’s camp on one occasion for consulting the Lord (1 Sm 23:6-9; 30:7). It is uncertain whether the priest donned or held the ephod whole, seeking counsel from the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim.<\/p>\nDuring the period of the judges, the ephod was often misused, as by Gideon (Jgs 8:27), Micah (17:5), and Jonathan, grandson of Moses (18:30; cf. vv 14, 17, 20). Either the garment itself or an image that represented God, on which the garment was placed, was worshiped as the people sought revelation in a manner condemned by God. Household idols (teraphim) were also associated with this ungodly practice (17:5; Hos 3:4).<\/p>\nBesides the high priest, other priests wore an ephod for certain religious services (1 Sm 22:18), and even Samuel (2:18) and David (2 Sm 6:14) wore one. By the postexilic period, and perhaps as early as Solomon, the ephod was no longer consulted (Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65). There was no need for ephod or Urim revelation once there was the more complete revelation of the prophetic ministry promised by Moses (Dt 18:15-22). However, the high priest continued to wear this vestment until the destruction of Jerusalem in AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\nSee also<\/em> Priests and Levites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"EPHOD (Garment) Upper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests. Made of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarl...","summary_en":"EPHOD (Garment) Upper garment worn during religious services associated with the tabernacle or temple. “Ephod” generally referred to the ornamented vest that the high priest wore over a blue robe (Ex 28:31). Included with the ephod were the Urim and Thummim, the sacred lots. Sometimes “ephod” meant the complete dress of the high priest (1 Sm 2:28; 23:6, 9; 30:7) or similar garments worn by lesser priests. Made of dyed material and fine linen, the garment was embroidered in blue, purple, scarl...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46357,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:18","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:18","content_ro":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","content_en":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","summary_en":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73983,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:18","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:18","content_ro":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","content_en":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","summary_en":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101609,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:18","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:18","content_ro":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","content_en":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","summary_en":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129235,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:18","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:18","content_ro":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","content_en":"22:18<\/strong> Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them:<\/em> As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments:<\/em> This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","summary_en":"22:18 Doeg the Edomite . . . killed them: As a non-Israelite, Doeg had no concern for the sanctity of God-anointed priests. He knew he was executing innocent men. This evil foreigner partially fulfilled the prophecy about the condemned priestly line of Eli (2:27-34; see 1 Kgs 2:27). • still wearing their priestly garments: This incident illustrates how mad Saul had become. Not even those holding a sacred office were safe.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":46358,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:19","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:19","content_ro":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","content_en":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","summary_en":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73984,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:19","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:19","content_ro":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","content_en":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","summary_en":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101610,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:19","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:19","content_ro":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","content_en":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","summary_en":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129236,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:19","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:19","content_ro":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","content_en":"22:19<\/strong> Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families<\/em> and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","summary_en":"22:19 Saul had been unwilling to carry out God’s orders to destroy completely the Amalekites and their possessions (15:3, 9). Yet now, in his rage, he did not hesitate to decimate the priests’ families and their possessions (see Prov 14:29; 16:14; 27:4).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"20":[{"id":41244,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Abiathar","title_en":"Abiathar","content_ro":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","summary_en":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":68870,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Abiathar","title_en":"Abiathar","content_ro":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","summary_en":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":96496,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Abiathar","title_en":"Abiathar","content_ro":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","summary_en":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124122,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Abiathar","title_en":"Abiathar","content_ro":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Abiathar<\/h3>\nAbiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped.<\/p>\nAbiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable; he represented the priesthood of Eli’s line and brought with him the holy ephod containing the Urim and Thummim (Exod 28:29-30), which allowed him to seek God’s will for David during crises (1 Sam 23:1-12; 30:7-8). After David became king, Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, who was not a descendant of Eli (1 Chr 6:8; 18:16; 24:3). Both served David well; during Absalom’s rebellion, for example, they reported to David what was happening in the capital (2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15-16).<\/p>\nIn David’s old age, Abiathar wrongly supported Adonijah’s attempt to become king in his father’s place; Zadok remained loyal to David and supported Solomon (1 Kgs 1:5-8). As a result, once Solomon was on the throne, he removed Abiathar’s priestly authority and banished him to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles northeast of Jerusalem. Zadok became the high priest, and that role passed to Zadok’s descendants rather than to Abiathar’s. This removal fulfilled “the prophecy the Lord<\/span> had given at Shiloh concerning the descendants of Eli” (1 Kgs 2:27; see 1 Sam 2:27-36).<\/p>\nPassages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n1 Sam 22:20-23; 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2 Sam 15:27-37; 17:15; 1 Kgs 1:1–2:35; 1 Chr 15:11<\/p>","summary_ro":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","summary_en":"Abiathar Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign and into Solomon’s reign. He first encountered David before David became king. When David fled from Saul, he stopped at the city of Nob. Pretending that he was acting on Saul’s orders, David got food and supplies from the priests there. Saul discovered what had happened and was so angry that he killed all but one of the priests; only Abiathar escaped. Abiathar was among the first people from Saul’s administration to support David. His sup...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Abiathar","title_en":"Abiathar","content_ro":"<h3>ABIATHAR<\/h3>\nOne of two high priests during the reign of King David. The other high priest was Zadok, who evidently was appointed by David after his conquest of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nOnly Abiathar escaped when the priestly families at Nob were massacred at the instigation of King Saul. The priests of Nob had given food and Goliath’s sword to David during his escape from the wrath of Saul, thus earning Saul’s hatred (1 Sm 21–22). When Abiathar joined David he brought the ephod, which David then used in determining the will of God (1 Sm 23:6, 9-11; 30:7-8). Abiathar was one of the first persons from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable because he represented the priesthood of the old tribal league of the line of Eli.<\/p>\nDuring the last days of David’s kingship, his sons struggled for the throne. The two major rivals were Adonijah and Solomon. Abiathar the high priest supported Adonijah’s claim to the throne, probably because Adonijah was David’s oldest living heir and because David’s general Joab, one of the strongest men in the kingdom, supported Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:5-7). Zadok supported Solomon, who actually succeeded David on the throne. Having fallen out of favor with the new king, Abiathar was banished to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. <\/p>\nThe relationship of Abiathar to Ahimelech is confusing. Ahimelech could have been the name of both Abiathar’s father (1 Sm 22:20; 23:6) and son (2 Sm 8:17; 1 Chr 18:16; 24:6). If each of the references was to the same Ahimelech, then the names were reversed in the later passages. In the NT, Abiathar is mentioned as the high priest when David came to Nob needing food and weapons (Mk 2:26). The OT account says that Ahimelech was the priest at that time (1 Sm 21:1-2). The apparent discrepancy may have resulted from a copyist’s error or from the fact that Abiathar as high priest was more prominent than Ahimelech.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ABIATHAR<\/h3>\nOne of two high priests during the reign of King David. The other high priest was Zadok, who evidently was appointed by David after his conquest of Jerusalem.<\/p>\nOnly Abiathar escaped when the priestly families at Nob were massacred at the instigation of King Saul. The priests of Nob had given food and Goliath’s sword to David during his escape from the wrath of Saul, thus earning Saul’s hatred (1 Sm 21–22). When Abiathar joined David he brought the ephod, which David then used in determining the will of God (1 Sm 23:6, 9-11; 30:7-8). Abiathar was one of the first persons from Saul’s administration to support David. His support was formidable because he represented the priesthood of the old tribal league of the line of Eli.<\/p>\nDuring the last days of David’s kingship, his sons struggled for the throne. The two major rivals were Adonijah and Solomon. Abiathar the high priest supported Adonijah’s claim to the throne, probably because Adonijah was David’s oldest living heir and because David’s general Joab, one of the strongest men in the kingdom, supported Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:5-7). Zadok supported Solomon, who actually succeeded David on the throne. Having fallen out of favor with the new king, Abiathar was banished to his estate in Anathoth (1 Kgs 2:26-27), a village about four miles (6.4 kilometers) northeast of Jerusalem. <\/p>\nThe relationship of Abiathar to Ahimelech is confusing. Ahimelech could have been the name of both Abiathar’s father (1 Sm 22:20; 23:6) and son (2 Sm 8:17; 1 Chr 18:16; 24:6). If each of the references was to the same Ahimelech, then the names were reversed in the later passages. In the NT, Abiathar is mentioned as the high priest when David came to Nob needing food and weapons (Mk 2:26). The OT account says that Ahimelech was the priest at that time (1 Sm 21:1-2). The apparent discrepancy may have resulted from a copyist’s error or from the fact that Abiathar as high priest was more prominent than Ahimelech.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ABIATHAR One of two high priests during the reign of King David. The other high priest was Zadok, who evidently was appointed by David after his conquest of Jerusalem. Only Abiathar escaped when the priestly families at Nob were massacred at the instigation of King Saul. The priests of Nob had given food and Goliath’s sword to David during his escape from the wrath of Saul, thus earning Saul’s hatred (1 Sm 21–22). When Abiathar joined David he brought the ephod, which David then used in deter...","summary_en":"ABIATHAR One of two high priests during the reign of King David. The other high priest was Zadok, who evidently was appointed by David after his conquest of Jerusalem. Only Abiathar escaped when the priestly families at Nob were massacred at the instigation of King Saul. The priests of Nob had given food and Goliath’s sword to David during his escape from the wrath of Saul, thus earning Saul’s hatred (1 Sm 21–22). When Abiathar joined David he brought the ephod, which David then used in deter...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":916,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Ahimelech","title_en":"Ahimelech","content_ro":"<h3>AHIMELECH<\/h3>\n<li>1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9-19). Only Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, escaped and fled to David’s protection (22:20-23). Psalm 52 was written by David as an indictment of Doeg’s treachery.<\/li>\n<li>2. Hittite who joined David’s guerrilla force during his flight from Saul (1 Sm 26:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Abiathar and grandson of #1 above. This Ahimelech aided his father in the priesthood under King David (2 Sm 8:17; 1 Chr 24:3, 5, 31; cf. 1 Chr 18:16, where some versions have Abimelech instead).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>AHIMELECH<\/h3>\n<li>1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9-19). Only Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, escaped and fled to David’s protection (22:20-23). Psalm 52 was written by David as an indictment of Doeg’s treachery.<\/li>\n<li>2. Hittite who joined David’s guerrilla force during his flight from Saul (1 Sm 26:6).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Abiathar and grandson of #1 above. This Ahimelech aided his father in the priesthood under King David (2 Sm 8:17; 1 Chr 24:3, 5, 31; cf. 1 Chr 18:16, where some versions have Abimelech instead).<\/li>","summary_ro":"AHIMELECH 1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9...","summary_en":"AHIMELECH 1. A priest at Nob who aided David in his flight from Saul (1 Sm 21:1-9). When he was asked for food, all he could provide was the holy bread in the tabernacle (Jesus referred to this incident in Mt 12:1-8). Doeg the Edomite subsequently reported this action to Saul, who ordered Ahimelech put to death. Saul’s guards were unwilling to execute a priest, but the informer Doeg had no such inhibitions. He killed Ahimelech and 84 other priests, plus their families and livestock (1 Sm 22:9...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":10459,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Eli","title_en":"Eli","content_ro":"<h3>ELI<\/h3>\nPriest in the sanctuary of the Lord at Shiloh in the period of the judges (1 Sm 1:3, 9). Shiloh, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, was the central shrine of the Israelite tribal confederation. Eli had two sons who were priests, Hophni and Phinehas (which are Egyptian names). No lineage is recorded for Eli, but there are two possible suggestions: he is a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son (1 Sm 22:20; 1 Kgs 2:27; 1 Chr 24:3); or he comes from the house of Eleazar (Ex 6:23-25; 2 Esd 1:2-3). In 1 Samuel 1, Eli blessed the childless Hannah, Elkanah’s wife, after learning of her prayer for a son. Subsequently, Samuel was born, and when he was weaned, he was brought by his mother to Eli for service and training in the sanctuary, according to her promise to the Lord.<\/p>\nHophni and Phinehas were corrupting the Israelites despite Eli’s protests, and for this sin God promised judgment upon Eli’s family (1 Sm 2:27, 36). The sons of Eli were to die on the same day (v 34), and the fulfillment came in a battle with the Philistines at Aphek (4:11, 17). Eli, too, died when he heard of the defeat and the loss of the ark of the covenant to the Philistines. At his death he was 98 years old, and besides being priest, he also had judged Israel for 40 years (vv 15-18). Eli’s daughter-in-law, Phinehas’s wife, died in childbirth, brokenhearted over the loss of her husband and the ark. She named her son Ichabod because she felt that there was no more hope (vv 19-22).<\/p>\nEli was not characterized by a firm personality. He was no doubt sincere and devout, but he was also weak and indulgent.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ELI<\/h3>\nPriest in the sanctuary of the Lord at Shiloh in the period of the judges (1 Sm 1:3, 9). Shiloh, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, was the central shrine of the Israelite tribal confederation. Eli had two sons who were priests, Hophni and Phinehas (which are Egyptian names). No lineage is recorded for Eli, but there are two possible suggestions: he is a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son (1 Sm 22:20; 1 Kgs 2:27; 1 Chr 24:3); or he comes from the house of Eleazar (Ex 6:23-25; 2 Esd 1:2-3). In 1 Samuel 1, Eli blessed the childless Hannah, Elkanah’s wife, after learning of her prayer for a son. Subsequently, Samuel was born, and when he was weaned, he was brought by his mother to Eli for service and training in the sanctuary, according to her promise to the Lord.<\/p>\nHophni and Phinehas were corrupting the Israelites despite Eli’s protests, and for this sin God promised judgment upon Eli’s family (1 Sm 2:27, 36). The sons of Eli were to die on the same day (v 34), and the fulfillment came in a battle with the Philistines at Aphek (4:11, 17). Eli, too, died when he heard of the defeat and the loss of the ark of the covenant to the Philistines. At his death he was 98 years old, and besides being priest, he also had judged Israel for 40 years (vv 15-18). Eli’s daughter-in-law, Phinehas’s wife, died in childbirth, brokenhearted over the loss of her husband and the ark. She named her son Ichabod because she felt that there was no more hope (vv 19-22).<\/p>\nEli was not characterized by a firm personality. He was no doubt sincere and devout, but he was also weak and indulgent.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ELI Priest in the sanctuary of the Lord at Shiloh in the period of the judges (1 Sm 1:3, 9). Shiloh, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, was the central shrine of the Israelite tribal confederation. Eli had two sons who were priests, Hophni and Phinehas (which are Egyptian names). No lineage is recorded for Eli, but there are two possible suggestions: he is a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son (1 Sm 22:20; 1 Kgs 2:27; 1 Chr 24:3); or he comes from the house of Eleazar (...","summary_en":"ELI Priest in the sanctuary of the Lord at Shiloh in the period of the judges (1 Sm 1:3, 9). Shiloh, about 10 miles (16 kilometers) north of Jerusalem, was the central shrine of the Israelite tribal confederation. Eli had two sons who were priests, Hophni and Phinehas (which are Egyptian names). No lineage is recorded for Eli, but there are two possible suggestions: he is a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s younger son (1 Sm 22:20; 1 Kgs 2:27; 1 Chr 24:3); or he comes from the house of Eleazar (...","source":"Articles\/E.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46359,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:20","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:20","content_ro":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","content_en":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","summary_en":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":73985,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:20","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:20","content_ro":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","content_en":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","summary_en":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":101611,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:20","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:20","content_ro":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","content_en":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","summary_en":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129237,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Samuel 22:20","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Samuel 22:20","content_ro":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","content_en":"22:20<\/strong> Abiathar<\/em> became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).<\/p>","summary_ro":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","summary_en":"22:20 Abiathar became an adviser to David, providing guidance from the Lord through the ephod (23:2-12; 2 Sam 15:24-36). Later, he conspired with Adonijah against David and Solomon (1 Kgs 1–2).","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"}}

1 Samuel 22

Citește Biblia

1 Samuel 22

Niciun rezultat

Redare audio

Bine ai venit! 👋